Yasin Din

Immigration

Deals with cases where the government is seeking to strip nationals of their citizenship, remove them from the country, or to deport them for criminal behaviour.  He deals with cases such as suicide risk under Article 3, applications under the ADR route or the interplay of medical issues to Article 8 which often involving complex legal arguments. It is rare for him to be instructed on the simple immigration cases.  He is often asked to settle grounds to appeal in cases which he has not been involved in and appears in the Upper Tribunal on a regular basis.

• SSHD v HZ 2023 – application by child to be reunited with her father, successfully argued the appeal should be granted, the SSHD appealed the matter and succesfully argued in the Upper Tribunal that there was no error of law.
• BK v SSHD– successfully settled appeal grounds on application based on family between an autistic child and an auntie pending for a hearing in the Upper Tribunal.
• SSB v SSHD 2023 – application to strip an Indian of his British nationality, the incorrect grounds were settled by another, permission granted by the UT to seek permission to amend the grounds- matter to be heard in the UT.
• SSHD v SG – successfully argued in the First Tier that an Albanian national should not be stripped of British nationality; the SSHD seek to have this overturned in the UT
• SSHD v TI 2023 – successfully argued in the First Tier that an Iraqi national who is living overseas should not be stripped of British nationality; the SSHD seek to have this overturned in the UT.
• PS V SSHD 2023 – Permission granted to appeal the interpretation of when an extended family member becomes a family member of an EU National.
• The Queen on the application of AF v SSHD JR 2022, permission granted to judicially review the decision of the SSHD  who had rendered an asylum claim as in admissible for an EU national and sought to return the EU national in order to serve the remainder of the sentence. The decision was challenged in light of Article 3 and matter was eventually dealt with by way of a consent order and AF was not returned to serve his sentence.
• LN v SSHD 2022– permission to appeal to the UT obtained post refusal by the FtT re an application under EEA regulations.
• JK v SSHD 2022– FtT refused applicant. Did not appear in the  FtT hearing permission to appeal against the FtT  was granted.
• UR v SSHD 2022 – Did not appear in the hearing but has obtained permission to appeal against the FtT ruling based upon a death of a partner which was eventually refused by the UT
• SSHD v VP 2021 – SSHD sought to overturn the ruling of the First tier that parental relationship existed between two adults who were not related successfully defended and no error of law was found.
• MLA v SSHD 2021 – successfully argued that there was an error of law resulting in fresh hearing where a Judge had been misled by witnesses in the First-tier hearing.
• MD v SSHD 2021– Successfully argued that a trafficked Albanian female could not be returned to Albania after the first found she could
• SS v SSHD 2019 – successfully argued in the case of an Iraqi national that the first tier had made an error to warrant a rehearing in the first tier.
• SK v SSHD 2019– successfully argued that the first tier had made an error resulting in the appeal being allowed by the Upper Tribunal
• SSHD v SR 2019 – Deportation matter returned to the First Tier for a new hearing.
• DV v SSHD 2019– successfully argued that the first tier had made an error by placing the burden on an EEA national to show the marriage was genuine 
• GM v SSHD 2019– First Tier Decision challenged on procedural fairness
• SSHD v JK & Ors 2019– SSHD appeal against granting of appeals based upon Human Rights
• SL & Ors v SSHD  2018– successfully argued that the first tier had applied the wrong test when considering if it was reasonable for a child to leave the UK
• BHT v SSHD  2018 – successfully argued that the first tier had made an error when assessing if an EEA national was exercising treaty right
• HK v SSHD   2018– Appeal allowed on Human Rights grounds by the Upper Tribunal –
• SSHD v SR 2018– SSHD appeal against the decisions of the First tier to allow an appeal against deportation.
• MKB & Ors v SSHD 2018– First Tier Decision challenged on material consideration
• TM v SSHD 2018 Appeal against EEA rights
• The Queen on the application of SB v SSHD JR/6353/2019 -Applicant  was a victim of DV. Grounds for JR settled, SSHD consent to reconsider and grant ILR.
• The Queen on the application of LH v SSHD JR/1508/ 2019 –  Oral permission hearing. Certification challenged on the basis that the Applicant had provided evidence to show he was LGBT.
• The Queen on the application of MK v SSHD JR/1111/2019 – Oral permission hearing challenging the certification on the basis of para 276ADE.
• The Queen on the application of BK v SSHD JR/5912/2019 – Grounds for JR settled challenging procedure adopted on curtailment
• The Queen on the application of SK v SSHD JR/2256/2019 – Oral permission hearing challenging the certification on the basis of EX1(b)
• The Queen on the application of AA v SSHD -JR/1748/2018– Oral Permission granted in the case of an out of time application regarding fresh evidence
• The Queen on the application of ID v SSHD -JR/2289/2018 – Oral permission hearing sought to challenge that the SSHD had not property exercised discretion under para 254HD(r)
• The Queen on the application of AG v SSHD 2019 – Grounds prepared and settled for failing to take into account Fresh Evidence
• The Queen on the application of BK v SSHD 2019 – Grounds challenging the certification of a human rights claim

Family

Yasin often appears in the family courts and deals with private law matters involving access to children and financial disputes.  He deals with Private law matters in the area of Contact with children, interim contact orders, enforcement of child arrangement orders, Fact Finding Hearings, and final hearings.

He also deals with the issue of ancillary relief when it comes to Financial issues and deals with matters from the 1^st appointment through to the final hearing. Applications to set aside or vary consent orders.

His knowledge of Islamic law comes to the fore when dealing with the issues of any beneficial interests when the marriages are underpinned by Islamic law as well as the impact of Zakat, Hadana principles and the application of the Haq Mahr when it comes to gold and jewellery and its enforceability.

His extensive background in criminal law is an asset when it comes to disputes between parties which have to be resolved by fact finding hearings.

Yasin deals with cases from the first hearing onwards as well as interim applications.  He regularly conducts hearings in the sphere of private law involving children, custody, access as well as dealing with the financial aspects including applications to set aside consent orders or variation of orders made.

Yasin deals with cases involving the immigration status of a partner as well as cases where a partner has criminal convictions which are being used in the family courts.

Islamic law

Yasin can advise on Sharia based contractual agreements such as Musharakah, Mudarabah, Murabahah, Ijara, Salam and Istisna.  He can advise on Islamic marriages (Nikahs) and other faith-based marriages to assess if they are qualifying or non-qualifying in light of the Marriage Act 1949. He  is able to advise those who are wanting to enter into Nikah only based marriages as what rights they have under the Sharia so that the marriage contract is drafted to contain these rights. He can also advise on the issues of Hadana, Mahr,  Khula, Talaq, the role of a Wali etc when it comes to drafting of the Nikah as well advise on the rights post a separation. His Master’s thesis addressed as to how a non-qualifying Nikah could give rise to similar rights as a qualifying Nikah under the Marriage Act 1949 without the need of having to change the law.

Pakistani law

Yasin is authorised to practice in Pakistan and he can deal with a number of issues relating to this area.

Judicial review

Yasin has a master’s degree in Judicial Review. He regularly drafts Judicial Review grounds, Pre-Action Protocol letters and conducts Judicial Review permission hearings.

Crime

Yasin has an interest in Criminal law and has practised for many years and where a case interests him, he will take that one.

Notable Criminal case involvement

• R v Calderdale MC, ex parte Donohue & Cutler (2001) Crim LR 141
• R v Teesside Crown Court, ex parte TH & others Revocation of bail
• R v RC. Murder
• R v AR & others. Murder
• R v RHA & others. Murder
• R v HA & others. Murder
• R v LC & another, Murder of a child
• R v SB Murder
• R v ZA Murder
• R v TL & others. Attempted Murder of an alleged paedophile
• R v BM. Soldier charged with multiple counts of Attempted Murder
• R v MK & others large scale conspiracy to supply class A involving 16 defendants
• R v JH International drugs conspiracy spanning India, Greece, Germany & Philippines involving 16 defendants
• R v NN & others. large scale conspiracy to supply class A drugs involving 17 defendants
• R v JM & others. large-scale conspiracy to supply of Class A drugs
• R v SH & SA & others. 2-year undercover drugs operation
• R v TH & others Large scale drugs conspiracy involving class A drugs
• R v MB. Terrorism -First prosecution under the glorification provisions
• R v AM Theft of medicines which were sent to Syria.
• R v CB & others. cash for crash scam involving 44 defendants.
• R v DK & others. Kidnapping of a drugs courier by a drugs gang.
• R v MA & others. kidnap & torture involving a drugs gang.
• R v MR & others -Exploitation of vulnerable girls
• R v RN & others Exploitation of young girls.
• R v DS non-disclosure of HIV status pre consensual sex & mitigation.
• R v MR – large scale mortgage fraud
• R v SA & others – Conspiracy to supply class A drugs.
• R v TM & others. large scale drugs conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
• R v SA & others. Conspiracy to supply large quantities of class B drug.
• R v SM & another Conspiracy to supply class A drugs

Education

• B(Hons) – Business Law
• LL.M – Judicial Review
• MA – Islamic Law
• Law Society’s Level 2 Immigration Accreditation

Publications

Yasin also writes papers on Islamic law and the English law which are published on the Academia website.

• The Enforceability of Sharia contracts in the English Courtshttps://www.academia.edu/84458919/The_Enforceability_of_Sharia_contracts_in_the_English_Courts
• Forced Marriages and the Islamic Guardians in light of the law of England & Wales – 2023 https://www.academia.edu/94714555/Forced_Marriages_and_Islamic_Guardians_in_light_of_the_law_of_England_and_Wales_Yasin_M_Din_LL_B_Hons_LL_M_MA_Barrister_at_Law
• ‘I-Muslim – Could the evolution of Artificial General Intelligence lead to an Artificial Muslim -2022 https://www.academia.edu/85782643/I_Muslim_Could_the_evolution_of_Artificial_General_Intelligence_lead_to_an_Artificial_Muslim_YASIN_M_DIN_LL_B_Hons_LL_M_MA_Barrister_at_Law
• Are the Narrators of Hadith historian? And are Hadiths part of the historical records? https://www.academia.edu/84810175/ARE_THE_NARRATORS_OF_HADITHS_HISTORIANS_AND_ARE_THE_HADITHS_PART_OF_THE_HISTORICAL_RECORDS_YASIN_M_DIN_LL_B_Hons_LL_M_MA_Barrister_at_Law
• The Unintended Similarities between the Qur’an & the English legal system https://www.academia.edu/84549116/THE_UNITENDED_SIMILARITIES_BETWEEN_THE_QURAN_and_THE_ENGLISH_LEGAL_SYSTEM
• The Enforceability of Sharia contracts in the English Courts
  https://www.academia.edu/84458919/The_Enforceability_of_Sharia_contracts_in_the_English_Courts
• How a non-qualifying Nikah could give rise to similar rights as a qualifying Nikah under the Marriage Act 1949 without the need of having to change the law – 2020 https://www.academia.edu/84420001/How_a_non_qualifying_Nikah_could_give_rise_to_similar_rights_as_a_qualifying

Pro bono

Yasin is also an advocate for the charity Bail for Immigration Detainees.

Memberships

• Yasin is a member of  the Bar Council Direct Access Committee
• Yasin is member of Azad & Jammu Kashmir Bar
• Yasin is a member of Western Circuit