• In TR (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1412 Lord Justice Beatson said that: “Mr Maqsood has put his argument in a very attractive way …”
  • In The Secretary of State for the Home Department v KM (appeal number: IA/29276/2014) the Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge I A Lewis acknowledged the “helpful and realistic approach” taken by Mr Maqsood and said that “clear and cogent submissions” were made by Mr Maqsood.
  • In the case of Usman Khalid v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (appeal number: IA/06062/2015) the Upper Tribunal Judge John Freeman stated that: “Mr Maqsood, who has been most industrious in his researches…”
  • In AO v Entry Clearance Officer (appeal number: OA/20610/2013) the First-tier Tribunal Judge Dineen said that: “Mr Maqsood who conducted the appeal with great thoroughness and clarity for which I am very grateful…” and “Mr Maqsood assures me and I accept from him because he is clearly experienced in these [immigration] matters…”.
  • In Harwinder Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (appeal number: IA/46032/2014) the Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davidge said that: “he [Mr Maqsood] made a gallant effort to persuade me that I should look at the discretionary powers…”.
  • In the case of Hardeep Kaur and the dependents v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: IA/00048/2015) Mr Maqsood successfully represented the clients in the Upper Tribunal (IAC) and the matter was remitted back to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  • In the case of MA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: IA/14249/2014) Mr Maqsood successfully represented the client in the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) in an Article 8 appeal and again in the Upper Tribunal (IAC) on appeal from the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the tribunal’s decision where the tribunal found no error of law in the Article 8 decision and held that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) stands.
  • In the case of Rebu Thapa v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: IA/03929/2015) the First-tier Tribunal Judge Dineen stated that “[Mr Maqsood] submitted a helpful manuscript skeleton argument” in an appeal under the Immigration Rules varying the appeal grounds resulting in the appeal being allowed. And he represented the Appellant again in the Upper Tribunal (IAC) on appeal from the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the tribunal’s decision where the Upper Tribunal remade the decision allowing the Appellant’s appeal again.
  • In the case of SK and AK v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: IA/13276/2015 and IA/13279/2015) the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) allowed the Appellants’ Article 8 appeal where Mr Maqsood represented the Appellants. And he represented the Appellants again in the Upper Tribunal (IAC) on appeal from the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the tribunal’s decision where the Upper Tribunal remade the decision allowing the Appellants’ appeal again.
  • In Moalom Limited v SSHD (Claim Number: B50CL068) the Judge sitting in the Central London County Court remarked that “Mr Maqsood very eloquently went on to say that…”
  • In Roasters Piri Piri Limited v SSHD (Claim Number: CF095/2015CA) the Judge sitting in the Cardiff County Court remarked that “Mr Maqsood has done his best and as persuasively as possible…”
  • In the case of Irtiza Rasul v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appeal Number: IA/31913/2010) Mr Maqsood successfully represented the Appellant in his HSMP appeal.
  • In the case of Roasters Piri Piri Limited v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (CF095/2015CA) Mr Maqsood represented the appellant company in the County Court in an appeal under section 17 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
  • In the case of MR Mr Maqsood represented the Applicant in the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) in a Metal Health Act matter.
  • In the case of DN and KN Mr Maqsood represented a resident parent in the Family Court in a private child law matter in child arrangements order application.
  • In KN v KN Mr Maqsood represented the Respondent in a non-molestation order application.
  • In the case of The Queen (on the application of Muntizer Ali) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department JR/1287/2016 Mr Maqsood represented the applicant in a Judicial Review matter.
  • In the case of The Queen (on the application of Adnan Ali Zafar) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department JR/6634/2015 Mr Maqsood represented the applicant in a Judicial Review matter.
  • In the case of The Queen (on the application of Khurshed Kasimov) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department JR/1063/2016 Mr Maqsood represented the applicant in a Judicial Review matter.
  • In the case of The Queen (on the application of Muhammad Zeeshan) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department JR/6765/2015 Mr Maqsood represented the applicant in a Judicial Review matter.