Rupinder joined the firm in September 2010, practicing in the areas of Immigration, Human Rights, Public and Family Law. She became head of the Immigration and Public Law (for immigration matters) departments in November 2013. Rupinder continues to practice Family Law due to the significant overlap with Immigration work.
Rupinder provides invaluable and strategic advice on a broad range of Immigration matters. She has expertise in a range of applications including applications made under Tiers 1 – 5 of the Points Based System, settlement applications, spouse visas, visit visas, Human Right applications, statutory appeals and judicial reviews of increasing complexity. She has represented clients in cases before the First Tier and Upper Tribunal, the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice. Rupinder also has experience in assisting individuals detained at airports and detention centres, often successfully securing bail for them, as well as clients facing deportation.
The Family Law work Rupinder undertakes includes Annulments, Divorce, Child Abduction, Children Act and Financial Proceedings. She has represented clients successfully in the Family Courts for Child Arrangement Orders as well as assisting high net worth clients. She has also successfully represented clients in the High Court in complex Hague Convention cases for children who have either been abducted or been made a Ward of the Court.
Rupinder is able to analyse and assimilate information quickly and accurately. She has an inherent ability to identify the key issues underlying any legal matter and will either strengthen or defend the legal basis of a case from the outset. Her tenacious and persuasive style regularly leads to a successful outcome. Rupinder has a strong rapport with clients and is clear and concise when advising on complex areas of law and ensures her clients are able to understand what is said. She is helpful and professional at all times and has a reputation for pursuing a client’s case in a proportionate and compassionate manner.
Rupinder has several reported and broadcasted cases.
“Rupinder and her team put up with all my chasing, questioning, complaining, anxiousness and worry due to our case for 4 years, and every time she was understanding, showed empathy, put us at ease, gave us hope, and fought for us relentlessly. These are people who will fight for you but will also be honest in what they can achieve. Unlike other solicitors firm where we went, where they would charge for filling in a form knowing that it would not do anything for us, Rupinder gave us realistic advice and made us feel we were protected.”
– Perla and Toufik Lounes
“The service at MTG Solicitors was excellent. They helped me and my brother out a lot for my restaurant Caffe Mamma. I highly recommend Rupinder as she is great and is amazing at her job.”
– Caffe Mamma Ltd
“MTG Solicitors are a set of professional people that know their jobs inside out. They always treat people with respect and they are solution maker to any kind of legal cases. Also Rupinder K. Matharu is a star in dealing with immigration cases. I will always recommend the company at all times for their great work.”– Ayopo Fawole
“Great personalised service from the Head of Immigration Law. We are very happy with the care and attention we received and continue to receive.”– Middle Eastern Eye Ltd
“I had a great experience from start to finish. Rupinder, our lawyer, was always available to answer our queries and handled the case professionally and meticulously. Thanks to the teams tireless efforts, I got my visa.”– Zartaj Ahmed
Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department C 165/16 ECLI:EU:C:2017:862 (14 November 2017) – This case was heard in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice on 15 May 2017 after the referral made by the Court of Appeal on 8 March 2016 (as per above) based on the legal analysis of Strasbourg jurisprudence and free movement. The final judgment was delivered on 14 November 2017 found to be in the Appellant, Mr Lounes, favour. It has become a ‘lead’ case in this area which discusses the applicability of Directive 2004/38/EC against domestic legislation. The judges found that the Home Office had erred in their decision and that EEA Nationals holding dual nationality (naturalising after acquiring Permanent Residence) with their home state and host state could benefit from the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-165/16
Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 99  (28 February 2017) – This case was before the Court of Appeal and dealt with a challenge to the UK’s rules on the rights of non-EU nationals who are, or have been, family members of EU nationals residing in the UK. Domestic legislation which implemented the EU Citizenship Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC) provided that, in order to retain a right of residence in the UK following divorce from an EU national, a person in the Appellant’s position had to be working or self-sufficient at the time of the divorce. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/99.html
The Queen on the application of Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWHC 436  (8 March 2016) – This case was before the Court of Appeal and was an important referral to the European Court of Justice in respect of the free movement rights of a dual Spanish-British national under Directive 2004/38/EC and whether the EEA national/Union citizen remains a beneficiary of the Directive after acquiring British nationality. That referral was premised upon the underlying propriety of a decision by the Home Office that the EEA national can no longer benefit from the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 given that the definition of an EEA national has been amended to exclude British citizens following McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department (European citizenship). http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/436.html
Agyarko, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 2015/0129 and Ikuga, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 2015/0130 (Heard on 6 and 7 April 2016) – This case was before the Supreme Court and dealt with whether there was a requirement that an applicant for leave to remain in the UK, who formed a relationship with a British citizen while present in the UK unlawfully, must demonstrate either “insurmountable obstacles” to that relationship continuing in a different country or “exceptional circumstances” to justify consideration outside the scope of the Immigration Rules, is compliant with Article 8 ECHR and whether the current tests were compliant with Article 8 ECHR. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/440.html
ICS Car Srl and Fanel Toia v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 394  (19 April 2016) – This case was before the Court of Appeal and dealt with extremely complex points of law and was a test case on statutory penalties concerning clandestine entrants. It challenged penalties issued by Border Control in respect of a Carriers’ Liability for carrying clandestine entrants through the Port of Calais in a vehicle. The arguments considered included the assessment of a hauliers’ statutory defence against the Code of Practice and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It was the first one to be heard in the Court of Appeal in over 14 years. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/394.html
Maharjan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Secretary  EWHC 3719 (Admin) (14 December 2016) and Ghale, A (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  (Admin) (14 December 2016) – These cases were linked before the Administrative Court and involved a challenge of the Immigration Rules and Article 8 ECHR. It included a challenge for Unlawful Detention and the Home Office’s failure to lawfully assess the Appellants’ respective fresh claims and the omission to consider paragraph 353B of the Immigration Rules. It also had a challenge to the Home Office’s unlawful and inconsistent consideration of the application against other applicants as well as failure to lawfully discharge Rule 353. The Home Office had also certified the cases on the basis that deception was used however we were successful in this challenge and this point was conceded by the Home Office. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/3719.html
“The lawyer, Rupinder Matharu, said that it is an automatic consequence of a law that came into force this year, and that blames employers for ensuring that workers are regularized.”
Rupinder is quoted in the article as stating:
According to Mr Cuzmin’s solicitor Rupinder Matharu, from the firm MTG, the case could have “huge implications” for the haulage industry. She is challenging the Home Office on three main grounds. Central to her argument is that Mr Cuzmin’s firm followed all the Home Office guidelines on security – the driver had a copy of the guidelines translated into Romanian, he checked the lorry three times before arriving in Calais and did not stop close to the port where many of the migrants gather.
“We feel they had taken every step that they possible could,” she said. “Regardless, the fine was imposed.” She said she wanted a “gentler” approach from the Home Office. And she believes there is a wider principle. The majority of trucks crossing the channel are foreign owned – fewer than 15% of HGV’s are British registered and only 7% of fines are paid by UK-based firms. Ms Matharu said many foreign firms do not appeal against the fines. “Because of the amount, you have a lot of companies that will settle the fines and not challenge them,” she said.
This is the BBC News broadcast and Rupinder can be found at 4:13. She stated the following:
“He feels British. He has done a lot and completed his civic duty for the British public and therefore should be taken very seriously.”
Languages: Punjabi and Hindi