Adrian Berry

Adrian has an extensive practice in British nationality law, both (1) in historic Commonwealth-based claims and (2) in contemporary issues concerning the automatic acquisition of citizenship, naturalisation and registration, as well as deprivation and loss of British nationality. He advises on claims to be a British citizen, British Overseas citizen (BOC), British overseas territories citizen (BOTC), British National (Overseas) (BN(O)), British protected person (BPP) or British subject. He writes a blog on Nationality and Citizenship Law concerning all these issues.

He has particular expertise in running High Court trials on whether a person is already a British national (where witness evidence is called), see for example R(Nooh) v Secretary of State,  as well as the more usual judicial reviews of refused applications for naturalisation or registrations.

He regularly advises on the conflict of nationality laws for people with multiple nationalities, who hold or seek to hold both British nationality and other foreign nationalities, where the other countries are intolerant of multiple nationalities. In these cases he acts in partnership with foreign lawyers to resolve the conflict of laws between nationality law codes, as well as issues concerning domicile and tax. He also advises on the use of passports as markers of nationality.

As regards Statelessness issues, he acts and advises in relation to Statelessness cases, including in relation to the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. He works on cases concerning Stateless Persons in detention, the regularization of Stateless Persons, and the welfare of Stateless Persons. He is a member of the Advisory Council of the European Network on Statelessness (ENS).

He has contributed to all chapters and parts of Fransman’s British Nationality Law (3rd edition 2011), contributed the nationality law chapters to the JCWI Handbook 2006, contributed to Jackson and Warr’s Immigration Law and Practice (2008) on the Right of Abode, contributed the nationality law chapters to the Blackstone’s Guide to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (OUP 2010), advised JCWI on government nationality proposals, and contributed to ILPA responses to government consultation papers and advised peers in the House of Lords for ILPA.

He has written on the relationship between British nationality and EU citizenship in Deprivation of Nationality and Citizenship – The Role of EU Law, Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law, Volume 28 Number 4 2015 pp. 355-366. In addition, he has provided advice in Chagos Islanders v UK (ECtHR) on the position of the Chagos Islanders in British nationality law.

Adrian acts for individuals, commercial undertakings, and institutions in relation to matters arising for economic migrants under the Points-Based System (Tiers 1, 2 and 5) and other Immigration Rules routes. Among other things, he provides advice to individuals, sponsors, and banks and financial entities, in relation to the Tier 1 (Investor) route, Tier 2 work permits and Tier 2 Intra-Company Transfers (ICTs), and to individual and sponsors under other routes.

He regularly advises on issues that arise for migrants and for employers in relation to unlawful employment and Civil Penalties (including County Court appeals), including in scenarios where the employer holds a sponsor licence. He also works with employment lawyers to advise on the cross-over between immigration sponsorship, breaches of immigration law, employment rights law, and dismissal law. He writes on economic migration issues. In addition, he provides strategic advice to professional associations, commercial entities and community interest groups on the use of the economic migration routes and the opportunities for lobbying the UK Home Office on areas of concern.

Adrian has an extensive practice in relation to Brexit-related matters, EU Citizenship and the free movement of persons under EU law. He has appeared in numerous cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (including Chen, Teixeria, Dias, Alarappe, and Dakneviciute) and in numerous reported cases in domestic UK courts. He has a particular interest in EU law as it applies to EU Citizens and third country nationals in immigration and social welfare cases and in the Co-ordination of Social Security, Healthcare, and Pensions. His Cosmopolis blog contains a wealth of material on Brexit issues and EU law generally.

As regards Brexit, he acts and advises clients and institutions on the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement and implementing legislation as it affects immigration, rights to reside, residence permits, family reunion, social security, pensions, healthcare, and equal treatment. He has written extensively on these issues on his blog.

As regards immigration law, he advises on free movement of persons under Directive 2004/38/EC, deportation, rights of residence derived from other EU law provisions, Posted Workers rights, and the use of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to protect family members of EU migrants.

As regards social welfare cases, he also advises on entitlement to social assistance under EU law, the coordination of social security, pensions, and healthcare, and the right to equal treatment in social policy and education matters. 

As regards EU citizenship, he advises on rights derived from EU citizenship (Zambrano related rights) and associated social welfare rights. 

He has provided advice and assistance on EU law issues to the AIRE Centre, FEANTSA, and ILPA, among others. He has written extensively about the welfare of EU migrants, for Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice; Housing Law Handbook; Support for Asylum Seekers and other Migrants (Legal Action Group, 2009); and in journals.

Adrian advises and acts across the range of family reunion issues that affect his clients, deploying human rights arising under the ECHR, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Common Law, and other human rights catalogues, as appropriate. In immigration proceedings he acts for clients with family reunion issues and those who seek to rely on the European Convention on Human Rights. He has a particular interest in the intersection between immigration proceedings and family proceedings, and the procedural protection afforded by Article 8 ECHR.

Adrian acts in High Court proceedings for people who are unlawfully detained under immigration powers and in connected claims for damages for false imprisonment. He accepts urgent instructions where a person is detained and their removal or deportation is immanent. He has experience of acting for clients where the length of detention is challenged and/or the conditions of detention, in relation to adults at risk, where EU Citizens are detained, where Statesless Persons are detained, and where asylum seekers are detained for the purposes of removal under the Dublin III procedure to EU States.

Adrian acts for a small number of clients with complex and sensitive asylum and international protection claims. Many of his clients have extensive political and economic interests in the country from which they have fled, have a high profile and are also liable to extradition. He works in partnership with extradition lawyers, immigration solicitors, country experts and commercial advisors to provide a comprehensive service.

He provides advice and representation in matters arising under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Refugee Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) and the European Convention on Human Rights. He also acts for a small number of clients with general asylum claims, including clients with multiple nationalities, statelessness issues, difficult issues in relation to a nexus to a Refugee Convention reason, and those subject to removal under the Dublin Regulation. He writes on Refugee law issues.

Adrian provides strategic advice on settlement and citizenship options for persons looking to secure settlement, permanent residence and citizenship in the UK and elsewhere. He works in partnership with lawyers in other jurisdictions and with tax and financial advisors to ensure that clients are able to undertake the strategic planning necessary to optimise their position.

As regards students and matters arising under Tier 4, Adrian advises and acts for individuals migrating to the UK. He also for schools, and colleges in relation to sponsor licences (issue, suspension and revocation matters). In addition, he provides strategic advice to professional associations, commercial entities and community interest groups on the use of the student migration routes and the opportunities for lobbying the UK Home Office on areas of concern.

Adrian acts and advises clients with issues arising under general immigration law. In addition to the work described above, he advises and acts for clients seeking to enter and remain in the UK under the Immigration Rules and on the options outside of the Immigration Rules. He also acts for clients who are unlawfully detained, those facing deportation as ‘foreign criminals’ or facing removal proceedings, and those whose cases require a detailed knowledge of the structure of immigration control under the Immigration Act 1971.

He has also advised and represented OISC advisors in disciplinary matters before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration Services). 

Adrian regularly acts and advises in all areas of homelessness and allocations law concerning matters that are amenable to judicial review and in statutory homelessness appeals in the county court. In particular, he specialises in eligibility issues for migrants, appearing in numerous, reported cases. He has also provided HLPA with training and workshops on eligibility issues.

Adrian’s expertise in social housing is in securing accommodation and housing for migrants. He provides a distinct service to solicitors with migrant clients based on being a one-stop shop on account of his fluency in housing, immigration, nationality, EU, ECHR and social security law. Where possible he solves problems in one of these areas by finding solutions in another.

In 2010 he was counsel in the first housing case (one of two linked cases) to reach the Court of Justice of the European Union from a British court, see Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth [2010] EUECJ C-480/08 . In addition he has a string of reported cases demonstrating his expertise in helping migrants secure: homelessness assistance, asylum support accommodation, accommodation for children leaving care, and housing benefit. 

Adrian has developed a deep interest in migrant welfare, housing and support matters under different statutory regimes. His clients often have issues that touch on the Housing Act 1996, Community Care provisions, the Children Act 1989, and asylum support matters. He has particular expertise in asylum support, has a detailed knowledge of the asylum support system and has written extensively on support for asylum seekers.

He has a particular specialism in EU law as it applies to EU citizens and third country nationals in social housing, welfare and immigration cases, appearing in numerous reported cases. 

Adrian acts and advises clients in the First-tier and Upper Tribunal in social security, healthcare and pensions cases, including but not limited to cases that touch on immigration issues, EU law issues, pensions and points of statutory construction.

He has also acted in such cases, many reported, before the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeal and by way of reference before the Court of Justice of the European Union. He has a particular expertise in the coordination of social security for migrants under EU Regulation 883/2004 and under the Withdrawal Agreement.

In community care matters, he acts and advises clients, and migrants, in particular, on access to community care services, and on lawful decision making in the assessment and provision of care to people in need of services. 

Past notable cases can be viewed below. Click here to see a list of recent notable cases.

Notable cases include:

AH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] UKUT 53 (AAC) (Upper Tribunal). Under the Co-ordination of Social Security Regulation 883/2004 if someone is engaged in activity as a self-employed person in one State, are members of their family required to claim sickness benefits in that State, even if they are habitually resident in another State?

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Henrika Dakneviciute Case C-544/08 (Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Whether an EU Citizen retained self-employed status and a right to reside as such during periods of pregnancy and maternity.

R(Hassan) v Secretary of State [2019] EWHC 1288 (Admin) (High Court). Whether four individuals of Somali heritage who all held British Overseas citizen status were refused full British citizenship with a right of abode, as the secretary of state was entitled to find on the evidence that they did not meet the criteria in the British Nationality Act 1981 s.4B because they all held Somali passports and he was not satisfied that they were not Somali nationals.

AS(Guinea) v Secretary of State [2018] EWCA Civ 2234 (Court of Appeal). Persons alleging that they were Stateless had to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. However, if they were unable, for good reason, to produce documents or apply for nationality in the state with which they were most closely connected, the Secretary of State would make the necessary enquiries. By contrast, in Refugee cases a different and lower standard of proof was appropriate.

R(Nooh) v Secretary of State [2018] EWHC 1572 (Admin) (High Court). Four siblings of Somali heritage were entitled to passports as British overseas citizens on the basis that they had been born in the former Crown Colony of Aden prior to 14 August 1968 and had not acquired South Yemeni nationality on or before that date.

JM(Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State [2018] EWCA Civ 188 (Court of Appeal). The court considered the correct interpretation of the Immigration Rules paragraph 403 on the requirements for leave to remain in the UK as a Stateless Person and highlighted drafting deficiencies within the provision.

R(ML(Morocco) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2177 (Admin) (High Court). A period of 10 months’ detention under immigration powers while the Secretary of State tried to obtain an emergency travel document for a stateless individual was not unlawful.

Lopes v London Borough of Croydon [2016] EWCA Civ 465 (Court of Appeal). The court determined the correct destination for appeals where there had been an appeal to the county court which had made a determination as to costs and the parties wished to appeal the costs order.

London Borough of Croydon v Y [2016] EWCA Civ 398 (Court of Appeal). A judge should have granted a local authority’s application to strike out or stay an asylum seeker’s challenge to an age assessment unless he consented to further age assessments where such an order was reasonably necessary to enable the local authority to defend the challenge and the asylum seeker’s refusal to give his consent was unreasonable. The principles from Starr v National Coal Board [1977] 1 W.L.R. 63 were not confined to private law litigation.

Secretary of State for Home Department v Ojo [2015] EWCA Civ 1301 (Court of Appeal). The acquisition of a permanent right of residence depended on continuous residence with a qualifying status. Residence and immigration status were not analogous and a period during which the requisite financial dependency had been broken could not be ignored.

R(Bondada) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2661 (Admin) (High Court). An applicant who had been born in India to a father who had acquired British citizenship prior to her birth established her entitlement to British citizenship by descent, pursuant to the British Nationality Act 1981 s.11(1), where her mother’s passport from 1978 provided clear evidence of her parentage and her parents’ marriage.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SF [2015] UKUT 502 (AAC) (Upper Tribunal). Pregnancy and childbirth were not of themselves enough to take a woman off the employment market and so outside the scope of TFEU art.45; a woman was protected by her worker status until such time, not exceeding the “reasonable period” contemplated by Saint Prix, as she showed an intention not to be part of the employment market.

B(Eritrea) v Secretary of State [2015] EWCA Civ 141 (Court of Appeal). A Refugee was lawfully entitled to benefits from the date his status was established

R(Kondrak) v Secretary of State [2014] EWHC 639 (Admin) (High Court). The detention of a Polish national pending administrative removal was unlawful from the outset

R(Foo Ann Ku) v Secretary of State [2013] EWHC 3881 (Admin) (High Court). At the date of removal of a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) the Secretary of State had reason to believe that the individual would be admitted to Malaysia

Alarappe v Secretary of State C-529/11 (Court of Justice of the European Union). Does exercising a right to reside as the primary carer of the child of a former worker for five years give access to the EU right of permanent residence under Directive 2004/38/EC or otherwise?

Pryce v London Borough of Southwark, Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening [2012] EWCA Civ 1572 (Court of Appeal). Whether an unlawfully present parent of a British citizen/EU citizen child derived a right of residence from the need to enable the child to enjoy the genuine substance of his rights as an EU citizen in the country of his birth; whether EU citizenship after the case of Zambrano could confer a directly effective right of residence on that parent that rendered her eligible for homelessness assistance.

Mohan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1363 (Court of Appeal). The extent of the procedural protection afforded by article 8 ECHR, when immigration expulsion proceedings are afoot but family proceedings concerning contact with a child are not yet complete. 

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Maria Dias [2011] EUECJ C-325/09 (Court of Justice of the European Union). Whether periods of residence completed prior to the transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC contribute to the acquisition of the right of permanent residence. Whether periods of residence completed in reliance on a Residence Permit contribute to the acquisition of a right of permanent residence.

Teixeira (European citizenship) [2010] EUECJ C-480/08 Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth and another C-480/08 (Court of Justice of the European Union). Whether an EEA national who is both a former worker and the primary carer of her children who are in education, is eligible for homelessness assistance by virtue of enjoying a right to reside pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68.

R (Ghai v Newcastle City Council and Others & Secretary of State for Justice (Interested Party) & (1) Ramgharia Gurdwara, Hitchin (2) Alice Barker Welfare & Wildlife Trust (3) Equality & Human Rights Commission (4)Hindu Merchants Association (interveners) [2010] EWCA Civ 59 (Court of Appeal). Whether the wishes of an orthodox Hindu that his remains be cremated on a traditional fire could be accommodated under the Cremation Act 1902 and the Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008, whether the kind of structure that he found acceptable for his cremation was a “building” under the 1902 Act.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Dias [2009] EWCA Civ 807 (Court of Appeal). Whether a EU Residence Permit confers eligibility for income support on a single female head of household who left work to care for her child by virtue of Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC or Article 18 of the EC Treaty; referred to the European Court of Justice.

Yesiloz v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 415 (Court of Appeal). Whether a Turkish asylum seeker on temporary admission and subject to immigration control, as a citizen of a state that had ratified ECSMA, and in respect of whom some provision had been made in social security legislation, ought to be considered as having a right to reside for housing benefit purposes.

Barry v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 1440 (Court of Appeal). Whether an EEA national was eligible for homelessness assistance as a worker where he had worked for two weeks at a tennis championship and sought to retain worker status.

Baiai & Ors, R (On The Application of) v Secretary of State For The Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (House of Lords). Whether the scheme introduced by the Secretary of State that limited the rights of those subject to immigration control to enter into a civil marriage infringed the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.12 and was therefore unlawful. The objection inherent in the scheme applied just as much in the case of an illegal entrant as in the case of persons with very limited permission to remain.

Ehiabor v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2008] EWCA Civ 1074 (Court of Appeal). Homelessness: whether a child born in the UK to a person subject to immigration control, who had never left the country, could be a ‘person from abroad’ for the purposes of homelessness legislation.

Paul-Coker, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2006] EWHC 497 (Admin) (03 March 2006) [2006] HLR 32 (Administrative Court). Homelessness, interim accommodation pending Review, there was an unreasonable refusal letter failing to adequately adequately apply the ex parte Mohammed test in context of an arguable habitual residence of Claimant.

YD (Turkey) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 52 (Court of Appeal). Inherent power of Court of Appeal to order stay on removal where an appeal from AIT lodged out of time.

Mohamed, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Harrow [2005] EWHC 3194 (Admin) (13 December 2005) [2006] HLR 18 (Administrative Court). Homelessness, Interim accommodation pending Review, whether EC workers and EU citizens excluded from consideration.

R (Conde) v Secretary of State [2005] EWHC 62 (Admin) [2005] HLR 452 (Administrative Court). Availability of Children Act services to work seekers from EU Member States.

Burns, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2004] EWHC 1901 (Admin) (Administrative Court) Whether local authority entitled to rely on Home Office view of immigration status or whether it is required to make its own enquiries.

Chen and Others (Free movement of persons) [2004] EUECJ C-200/02 (19 October 2004) [2005] QB 325, [2005] All ER (EC) 129 [2004] 3 CMLR 1060 (European Court of Justice). Right to reside in UK of primary carer of an EU/Irish citizen in context of right to reside under Article 18 of the EC Treaty.

Secretary of State For The Home Department v. Rehman [2001] UKHL 47 (11thOctober, 2001) [2003] 1 AC 153, [2002]1 All ER 122 (House of Lords) Deportation and National Security.

Adrian is ranked in both legal directories for immigration. He is ranked in Tier 1 in the Legal 500 2019 and Band 1 in Chambers UK 2019.

In Chambers UK he has been described as having “real flair” and as being “excellent on EU points.” In the Legal 500 he has been described as ‘an “EU whiz-kid” who manages to “unscramble the EU and social security minefield with ease”‘, as having ‘an extensive British nationality law practice’, and as someone whose “commitment to ensuring that EU law can be used to benefit people who would otherwise be destitute is unwavering.”

In Chambers UK 2019, it is written that “He is second to none on EU issues.” “Has extensive knowledge across all areas of immigration, asylum and nationality law.”

In Legal 500 2019, it is written that “His brain works at frightening speed. Highly regarded for his expertise on nationality law.”

In Chambers UK 2018, it is written that “He impresses with his clear analytical thinking and an unrivalled knowledge of the law. In the era of Brexit, he is unquestionably the man to go to for EEA and nationality matters.”

In Legal 500 2017, it is written that “He is a genius; a walking encyclopaedia in both nationality law and European law.”

In Chambers UK 2017, Adrian is described as “An exceptionally skilled junior, whose practice is heavily focused on British nationality and EU free movement law. He routinely receives instructions from large-scale corporations in major commercial immigration matters.” “”An absolutely brilliant brain and a delightful personality – always a pleasure to work with.” “One of the finest legal minds of our time.”

In the Legal 500 2016, it is written that “His knowledge of the EU aspects of immigration law is unrivalled.”

In Chambers UK 2016, it is written that “He remains one of the few true experts on nationality law.” “He knows EEA law inside out. He is a seasoned High Court advocate and is so well connected in the world of immigration law, domestically and throughout Europe.”

In Legal 500 2015, Adrian is described as “Analytical, and extremely clever at complex law; the best of any barrister at EU and nationality law.” Regarding his social housing practice, “His depth of knowledge is excellent.”

In Chambers UK 2015, it is written that Adrian “has an excellent reputation for his work on British nationality, international protection and asylum matters. He is often called upon to advise the UNHCR on statelessness, and he provides businesses, schools and individuals with information on Tier 1 and Tier 4 applications. He is described as “incredibly knowledgeable across all areas of UK immigration law and always willing to take the time to have something run by him.” “Very impressive on nationality issues and statelessness, and a very good advocate and communicator.”

In Chambers UK 2014, Adrian is described as a “guru on European immigration issues,” and as “thorough and highly knowledgeable.” “In EU law he really is the person.” Regarding his practice in social housing, he is described as “bright and articulate,” Adrian Berry has extensive knowledge of the eligibility of EU nationals to housing rights. “He’s really stepped up as a leading junior on EU-related housing cases.” “He’s consistently turning out quality Court of Appeal and European work.” Sources praise him for his ability to convey complex arguments in a concise, clear and persuasive manner.”

In Legal 500 2014, Adrian is highlighted in Social Housing where it is said that “his knowledge of European Law is exceptional and his drafting is precise and clear.” He is also highlighted in Immigration where it is noted that “judges listen to him.”