The government’s plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda was found to be illegal by a British court on Thursday, dealing a setback to the Conservative administration’s promise to discourage migrants from undertaking perilous crossings over the English Channel.
Three Court of Appeal judges ruled two to one that Rwanda could not be regarded as a “safe third country” to which migrants might be deported.
However, the justices ruled that deporting asylum seekers to another nation was not in and of itself illegal. The verdict will probably be contested by the government before the UK Supreme Court. It can file an appeal up to July 6.
The overloaded dinghies and other small boats that go from northern France to the U.K. under the direction of migrants, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has vowed to “stop the boats.” In 2022, over 45,000 individuals attempted to cross the English Channel and some perished in the process.
More than a year ago, the governments of the U.K. and Rwanda came to an agreement that those migrants who enter the country illegally or in small boats will be sent to Rwanda to have their asylum requests assessed. Those who received refuge would remain there rather than go back to Britain.
The U.K. government contends that the measure will destroy the business model of criminal gangs that transport migrants over one of the busiest shipping channels in the entire globe.
Human rights organizations contend that sending people more than 6,400 kilometers to a country they do not wish to reside in is cruel and unjust and that the majority of Channel migrants are desperate individuals who lack a legal route to the United Kingdom. They also mention Rwanda’s subpar human rights record, which includes claims of torture and the murder of opponents of the regime.
In accordance with the agreement, Rwanda has already received $170 million from Britain, but no one has yet been sent there.
Rejecting a challenge from numerous asylum seekers, humanitarian organizations, and a border officials union, Britain’s High Court concluded in December that the policy is legal and does not violate Britain’s duties under the United Nations Refugee Convention or other international accords.
However, the court let the claimants, who include asylum seekers from Iraq, Iran, and Syria who face deportation under the government plan, to contest that judgment on grounds such as whether the plan is “systemically unfair” and whether asylum seekers would be safe in Rwanda.
The appeals court decided on Thursday that the U.K.’s international commitments did not preclude the removal of asylum seekers to a safe third country, giving the government a partial victory.
However, two of the three concluded that Rwanda was unsafe due to “serious deficiencies” in its asylum system. Asylum seekers, they claimed, “would face a real risk of being returned to their countries of origin,” where they would suffer abuse.
The most senior judge in England and Wales, Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett, disagreed with his two colleagues. He said that the Rwandan government’s assurances were sufficient to guarantee the migrants’ safety.
The Rwandan government disagreed with the decision, claiming that their country is “one of the safest countries in the world.”
According to government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo, “as a society and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment, in which migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities as Rwandans.” Everyone that moved here as a result of our relationship will gain from this.
The verdict, according to Human Rights Watch’s U.K. director Yasmine Ahmed, was “some rare good news in an otherwise bleak landscape for human rights in the U.K.”
She encouraged the government in charge of immigration, Home Secretary Suella Braverman, to “abandon this unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy and focus her efforts on fixing our broken and neglected migration system.”
It’s not clear how many people could be taken to Rwanda, even if the proposal is finally found to be legal. According to the government’s own estimate, it would cost an estimated $214,000 per person, making it clear that it would be very expensive.
But it is pushing the notion much further by preparing laws that would prevent anyone who enters the UK in small boats or through other illicit means from requesting asylum. The law would require the government to hold all such arrivals in detention before returning them to their home country or a safe third country if it were to pass.
