Bushan Deepchand

– Practice Director And Solicitor Of Senior Courts Of England And Wales –

Bushan is the Practice Director of Lambeth Solicitors and he has an established experience of managing Law Firms. He takes a leading role in the day to day affairs of the firm and ensures the efficient and structured running of Lambeth Solicitors Bushan specialises in Immigration and Asylum Law, Human Rights, Public and Administrative Law, Family and Children matters, Child Abduction under the Hague Convention, Civil Litigation, Criminal Litigation and Mauritian Law. His knowledge and understanding of the Points-Based System puts him in a remarkably significant position in the market.

Immigration and Asylum Law

Bushan undertakes all types of work relating to the Immigration and Asylum Law, He deals with all aspect of Entry Clearance applications, from visitor, business, commercial, and all the different Leave to Remain and Indefinite Leave to remain applications.  He has very good success rate in many complex applications such as adult-dependent relatives and dependant family members with complex needs.  Bushan has successfully won a number of Human Rights applications as well as applications made outside the rules and under the Home Office’s exceptional circumstances policy.

His meticulous preparations and genius articulation coupled with his flawless submission led to the successful asylum claim of a Mauritian National which resulted in the grant of refuges status in January 2024.  The Home Office accepted that the particular citizen of Mauritius had a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to her country of Mauritius and recognised that she is a refugee under the 1981 Refugee Convention.

Immigration Tribunal

Bushan appears regularly at the First Tier for all types of fact findings appeal.  He also appears before the Upper Tier of the Immigration Tribunal across England and Wales challenging decisions made by the First Tier Tribunal mainly on points of law.  He also conducts Bail hearings at various Courts and Detention centres across the Country and he maintains a very good success of winning complex immigration cases. He enjoys a good success on family cases of migrants involving children where the best interest and welfare of children is at stake.

Judicial Review and Court of Appeal

Bushan attends to Judicial Reviews matter at the Upper Tribunal and the Administrative Court on a regular basis. In addition, Bushan is actively involved in Court of Appeal cases and some of the cases are reported in the UK Jurisprudence and relied in Court by other fellow Lawyers. He has successfully argued a number of Deportation Cases where immigration status or Indefinite Leave Status were revoked but successfully re-instated. Bushan is regularly instructed on removal cases at the airport or detention centres. His ability to grasp issues very quickly is outstanding quality and he has always been commended for his honest advice to client.

He is a hard worker and has a rare talent of handling complex matters and giving life to cases which others may consider hopeless.

Expert Report

Bushan offer Expert Court Reports in providing immigration advice to the Court generally in Public Law care proceedings whereby he is required to provide expert reports and opinions to the Court addressing issues and questions raised in Court proceedings.

Children Law

Bushan deals with complex and sensitive cases involving children in the Private Law and Public Law at the Family Courts.  Bushan also undertakes work involving international movement of children and child abduction cases under the Hague Convention.

He is able to provide specialist advice and representation in complex disputes regarding child arrangements and child custody proceedings.  He conduct complicated fact finding hearings regularly in Family Courts across England, acting for parents, grand parents and other family members.

Family & Matrimonial

Bushan has considerable experience of the full range of applications under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.  He deals with section 37 and freezing injunctions to prevent the dissipation of assets. He conducts complex cases involving foreign marriage, separation or divorce where parties have assets abroad.  He draft pre-nuptial agreements and post-nuptial agreements.

He undertakes cases where there is a challenge to the validity of a marriage and he has successfully argued petitions of nullity in Court.

Bushan has a good success record acting in financial disputes for clients.  He is experienced in advising clients in relations to Trusts of Land and Appointments of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) matters.  He has crossover expertise with other areas of law for example where there are issues before the Court which involves mortgage, housing, benefits, fraud and undue influence.

Bushan provides advice and representations in respect to child maintenance issue arising under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the welfare arrangements for children.

Domestic Abuse

Bushan has extensive experience in representing clients who suffered domestic abuse and those defending the application.  He has a wealth of experience in family-related crimes such as assault and sexual abuse.  He undertakes both urgent and non-urgent cases such as

• Non- molestation orders,
• Occupation Orders
• Prohibited steps orders
• Femail genital mutilation protection orders
• Forced marriage protection orders.

Bushan also conducts fact-finding hearings in the above matters for both the Applicant and the Respondent.

Civil litigation work

Bushan also undertake Civil Litigation work and he handles a broad range of litigation matters from the local County Court to High Court matters. He also deals with regulatory matters, defamation claims and money claims.  He handle from the basic drafting to conducting the advocacy in Courts.

Criminal Litigation

Bushan has a depth of knowledge and experience in Criminal Law, dealing with the usual Road Traffic Offenses in the Magistrate Court to serious matters at the Crown Court including Fraud, Serious Offences against the person, Actual Bodily Harm, Grievous Bodily Harm Money Laundering, Trading standards and Counterfeit goods, Drugs related offences just to name a few. He regularly conducts trial and bail hearings at the various Magistrates Courts across England.

Bushan also undertakes work at the Social Security Tribunal for benefits-related matters.

He successfully defended his case against the OISC in 2013 and was awarded substantial defence cost which attracted wide publicity in local and international press.

His client normally say, “ … a great personality with gifted talent making the impossible become possible, he start when others have closed the door….”

Bushan is fluent in English, French, Mauritian Creole and Hindi.

Notable Cases:

Court of Appeal Civil Division

His latest achievement was to successfully defending a Third Party Costs application also known as Non-Party Cost application in the Court of Appeal on the 22nd October 2020, heard by Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Lewison, Deepchand & Anor v Sooben, [2020] EWCA Civ 1409. This case made headlines in the Law Society Gazette with the title “ Court of Appeal Rule Solicitor was the “Winner” in £50k Cost battle, A marathon dispute between two warring solicitors has taken another turn, with a costs decision overturned in the Court of Appeal.

Lord Justice Arnold ruled that Anbananden Sooben should pay the costs his opponents incurred in resisting his own costs application to the court. Sooben’s application had been refused but the High Court initially made no order as to costs: Arnold LJ reversed that decision on the basis that Sooben could be determined as the unsuccessful party.

Arnold LJ said the judge was wrong to suggest there had no winner on the costs application: Sooben was ‘indisputably’ the unsuccessful party and had not achieved what he sought.

Arnold LJ added: ‘If the application cannot be determined proportionately, then it should not be made. This supports, rather than undermines, the proposition that Mr Sooben should be responsible for the costs of making an abortive application.’

Anbananden Sooben has been ordered to pay Mr Deepchand and Lambeth Solicitors £55k for their costs in defending the claim.

Court of Appeal Civil Division

SS (Mauritius) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 926:

The appellant SS was told that he would not be deported by the Secretary of State at the end of his prison sentence because he was British citizen. However, after 5 years the SSHD stated that SS was not a British Citizen and issued deportation order to deport him to Mauritius. SS was married to a British Citizen and his two children were also British by birth. SS appealed against the SSHD deportation decision. The First-tier Tribunal initially allowed the appeal, accepting that SS was naturalised as a British Citizen. However, the Upper Tribunal overturned First-tier Tribunal’s determination and dismissed appeal on the basis that SS was not a British citizen and the deportation would not breach his Private and Family life under Article 8 of ECHR. The appellant instructed Lambeth Solicitors to challenge the decision in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal granted SS permission to appeal on all grounds. The three Lord Justices at the Court of Appeal decided that the Upper Tribunal erred in law to overturn decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal determination was restored, Secretary of State’s was ordered to pay the appellant’s cost and the SSHD application for permission to appeal to Supreme Court refused.

Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

HU/05165/2017, Successfully challenging SSHD TOIEC decision to revoke ILR.

The Secretary of State (SSHD) appealed to Upper Tribunal on the basis that the First Tier Tribunal made an error of law by allowing the appeal of the appellant, Mr B. The SSHD revoked Mr B’s Indefinite Leave to Remain on the basis that he has practiced deception by fraudulently obtaining TOEIC English Language test certificate. The appellant gave evidence in Court and produced two audio files in Court containing different voices which was not his. The First Tier Tribunal concluded that the SSHD did not discharge the full legal and factual burden of proof to establish deception and inter alia considered the SSHD decision interfered with the appellant’s Article 8 Human Rights and allowed the appeal. The Judge accepted submissions made by Bushan and stated “ I am entirely in agreement with Mr Deepchand that the judge’s decision was a particularly detailed and comprehensive one, including a meticulous consideration of the evidence and clear and cogent reasons for the conclusions reached.”  The appellant Indefinite Leave to Remain was reinstated.

First Tier Immigration Tribunal

HU/12220/2017 Successfully challenging 5 year ban and Criminal Convictions, Spouse Visa Entry Clearance application.

The Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) refused the Appellant’s visa application on suitability grounds, (i) the appellant was removed from the UK as a condition of a caution issued for Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) in accordance with Section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 less than 5 years prior to the date on which the application was decided and (ii) the appellant overstayed in the UK for a long period of time. The judge stated that “ I am invited by Mr Deepchand on a plain reading of S-EC.1.8 to interprete that as requiring 5 year period to start at the date of the caution. I reach the conclusion that Mr Deepchand is correct about that…” The Judge stated that “ in this case there is no evidence put forward by the respondent to show that the exclusion of the appellant from the UK is conducive to the public good. “ The Judge found that the appellant s not disqualified as to the suitability by S-EC1.8. The appeal was allowed.

HU/01264/2019, Successfully challenging SSHD decision to refused domestic worker Human Rights application.

The appellant was a domestic worker from Philippines who worked for a British Family living in Hong Kong from 2007. The family moved back to UK in 2017 with the domestic worker. She made an application for further leave to remain in the UK in January 2018 which was refused with no right of appeal. Lambeth Solicitors filed an application to the court for the case to be heard by the First Tier Tribunal. The case was heard by an Immigration Judge who concluded that “ the SSHD refusal interfere disproportionately with the right to respect the private life of the applicant and I consider the special and compelling feature of the relationship of the appellant and the employer family combine to outweigh the public interest. I find there are unjustifiably harsh consequences in the removal.” The appeal was allowed under Article 8.

HU/02429/2017 Successfully challenging dishonesty and fake visa on passport which was used to travel on various occasions.

(a) The Appellant was married to a British Citizen but was refused Entry Clearance on the basis that (i) he has practiced deception by using a fake visa contained in his passport to travel on various times, to work in the UK and to obtain loans etc, (ii) he lied to the SSHD and (iii) he had overstayed in the UK for a long period of time. The Appellant was refused Entry Clearance on grounds of suitability, he is in breach of the Immigration Rules refused under paragraph EC-P.1.1( c) of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. (S-EC.1.5).

Mr Deepchand argued that the burden to prove dishonesty lies on the SSHD and they have not been able to provide evidence to prove dishonesty. The Court held that “ the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant has not been dishonest and there is insufficient evidence to suggest that his presence in the UK is undesirable. The appeal was allowed under Immigration Rules.

Asylum and Refugee Status under the 1951 Refugee Convention

Bushan has successfully argued many asylum cases and won a number of them at the Home Office interview process and at the Immigration Tribunals.  However, due to the constant changes in the Home Office policy and Immigration Laws surrounding asylum seekers, it is becoming more challenging.   His most recent asylum success case are listed below;

2023

AM was a citizen of Albania, he fled his country in November 2016 and travelled to Italy, Belgium and France. He was trafficked to the UK in September 2017.  He claimed asylum in December 2017 and Home Office accepted he was a victim of modern slavery. The Court considered the risk of harm on his return to Albania and the issue of sufficiency of protection on his return to Albania, including relocation within his country.  The Court concluded that AM would face a real risk of suffering serious harm for a Convention reason which would render his removal to Albania, an infringement of his protected human rights under Article 3.

Although Mauritius is considered to be a designated safe country and found on the “white list” countries, which are presumed to be safe and whose nationals can return swiftly. Generally speaking, asylum claims made by Mauritian nationals are decided by the Home Office to be clearly unfounded on the basis that they can return to Mauritius, the latter being a safe country.  However, in very extreme cases, the Court and Home Office may decide otherwise, which are exceptionally very rare.

2021

Bushan has successfully represented a Mauritian national at the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal at the appeal hearing in 2021 which was allowed on Asylum Grounds as well as Human Rights grounds.  The Court found that (i) the appellant was persecuted by actors of the state, (ii) it was no possible for the appellant to seek protection from the Mauritian authorities and there was no internal relocation alternative available to the appellant.

The Court made an anonymity order that no report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the appellant or any member of the appellant’s family.

2024

Bushan represented a Mauritian national in claiming asylum in the UK in 2022.  The appellant fled Mauritius due to persecution by actors of the state.  After carefully considering her case and all the supporting evidences, in 2024, the Home Office accepted that she has been able to prove her case that she had a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to her country of Mauritius and have recognised that she is a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention, she was granted refugee status.

Qualifications: