Landmark Chambers

Home > Our people > Barristers > Lisa Busch QC

Lisa Busch

Lisa Busch QC


Print all


Lisa is a very experienced immigration practitioner. She was listed as a recommended junior in Administrative and Public law in the legal directories for many years, and is included as a recommended new silk in immigration in the latest edition of Legal 500. As a junior junior, she acted for claimants in asylum cases in the Tribunal on numerous occasions. As Panel Counsel, she represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Administrative Court, Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal in cases involving a wide range of immigration matters, including asylum, EEA cases, trafficking, deportation, immigration detention, families and children and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In silk, she welcomes instructions from claimants’ solicitors.

Notable cases include:

  • Hossain and Others [2016] EWHC 1331 (Admin): Lisa acted for the Secretary of State in a test-case challenge to the lawfulness of the Detained Asylum Casework Interim Instruction, providing for the detention under her immigration powers of certain classes of failed asylum seekers brought under the Equality Act 2010 and general public law grounds. 

  • LW (Jamaica) [2016] 4 WLR 76: concerning the notion of “exceptional circumstances” in the context of the removal of a foreign criminal and the nature of the proportionality test in deportation cases. 

  • Iran Country Guidance case [2016] UKUT 308: concerning whether an applicant is at risk on return from Iran by virtue of having left the country illegally and/or being a failed asylum seeker. 

  • GS (India) and others [2015] 1 WLR 3312: Lisa acted for the Secretary of State (led by Lisa Giovannetti QC) in a seminal challenge to her decision to remove terminally-ill unlawful immigrants to their countries of origin brought under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed the approach taken in such cases in D v UK and N v SSHD/N v UK, and made important observations concerning the relationship between Article 3 and 8 of the ECHR. 

  • AE (Algeria) [2014] EWCA Civ 653: concerning Articles 3 and 8 in the context of a proposed removal of a family with a terminally ill child. 

  • SS (Malaysia) [2014] Imm AR 170: challenge to a decision refusing the appellant’s claim that removing her from the UK would breach her and her son’s rights under Article 8 in circumstances where she was a practising Catholic and the child’s father in Malaysia a convert to Islam. 

  • LH (Nigeria) [2013] Imm AR 769: concerning the proposed deportation of a father and son and establishing that there had been no entitlement to the son to separate representation from that of his father. 

  • AJ (Bangladesh) [2013] EWCA Civ 493: challenge to a decision of the UT dismissing the appellants’ appeal against deportation, notwithstanding its finding that removing him from the UK would not be in his son’s best interests. 

  • Abdullah [2013] EWCA Civ 42: concerning the lawfulness of a failure on the part of the SSHD to grant the applicant leave to remain on the basis of Article 8 in circumstances in which the evidence as to whether he was of Palestinian or Saudi origin was unclear.

  • Richards [2013] EWCA Civ 244: concerning the impact on a child’s best interests of repeat drug offending by her father in in context of a deportation case. 

  • Suppiah [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin): Lisa acted for the SSHD (led by Jonathan Swift QC) in the lead challenge to the lawfulness of the detention of women and children in Yarl’s Wood IRC.

  • VW (Uganda) [2009] Imm AR 436: Lisa acted for the Secretary of State in this leading and oft-cited case concerning Article 8 of the ECHR. 

  • Tataw [2003] INLR 585: Lisa acted for the appellant asylum seeker in a challenge to the decision of the IAT to dismiss her appeal on procedural grounds concerning the question of whether she had met the time-limits for an appeal against the refusal of her asylum claim by the Tribunal in circumstances where her claim was based on the “unfamiliar practices” involved in FGM. 

For further details please see Lisa’s “Cases” page.