LONDON — A court on Monday ruled in favor of the British government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda but also said specific deportation cases should be reconsidered, casting doubt. about when – or whether – this highly controversial policy will be put into practice.
Britain’s move to outsource asylum applications to Rwanda to prevent migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats and Monday’s ruling at the High Court in London followed the deaths of four people who died last week while on a perilous trip.
But it also comes against a backdrop of tension within the ruling Conservative Party over the arrival of the boats – concerns that last week prompted Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to announce New scheme to tackle UK’s large backlog of asylum claims and to fast track the return of most Albanians seeking asylum.
Advocacy groups say the processing of asylum claims is in Rwanda, where Criticized human rights recordwould violate international law and won’t stop who ventured dangerous journeys.
In Monday’s ruling, the court decided that, in principle, Rwanda’s policy did not violate the law and was consistent with the government’s legal obligations, including those imposed by Congress. set with the 1998 Act. Human Rights Act.
However, it also ruled that the cases of eight people originally scheduled for deportation to Rwanda had not been properly reviewed, and it ordered the interior minister to review them.
“The Home Secretary must decide if anything about each person’s particular circumstances means that his asylum claim should be determined in the UK or if there is another reason why he should not be transferred to Rwanda,” reads an official summary of the ruling.
Experts say that is likely to encourage any future deportees to bring legal challenges to prevent them from being boarded on flights to Rwanda. Adam Wagner, a civil liberties lawyer, said: “I doubt that a single plane will leave, adding that lawyers represent people arriving in the UK on planes. Small boats will have to take time to assess their cases.
“Certainly the people who come on the boat will have complicated life stories,” Mr. Wagner said. “I think policy has always been like a stunt.”
The architects of the strategy describe the ruling as a pivotal moment, and the government says they welcome the ruling and are committed to defending the policy against any future legal challenges.
“We have always maintained that this policy is lawful and today the court upheld it,” Interior Minister Suella Braverman said in a statement. “I am committed to making this partnership work — my focus remains on getting the policy back on track as soon as possible. ”
Despite the legal victory for the government, few believe that the policy is likely to be in place anytime soon, at least on any scale.
The charities are likely to appeal the Supreme Court’s ruling, which, while not the top judicial body in the country, handles the most important non-criminal cases. Even if the government wins again, it will face court battles against specific evictions.
Colin Yeo, an immigration attorney, wrote in a legal commentary: “Whatever happens, it is unlikely that more than a relatively small number will be deported. For one thing, Rwanda has so far shown that it will accept a few hundred people a year, he said, adding: “Secondly, home offices are pretty bad at taking anyone anywhere at any given time. this.”
Under the deal with Rwanda, Britain is paying more than £120 million, or about $147 million, to provide financial opportunities for those sent to the tiny African country, including education and training in language and work skills. Refugees in Rwanda will not be able to return to the UK.
The policy has faced a number of complications and setbacks since it was introduced in april of Priti Patel, then interior secretary.
initial announcement increased anxiety for asylum seekershas been denounced by many opposition lawmakers and has caused great concern to international human rights groups.
In June, a small number of people arriving in Britain by boat were informed that they would be sent to Rwanda. But the orders has been challenged, and the last flight was landed. The plan was left in further turmoil when a Airline charter drawnbut the government swear to click.
The total number of people arriving by small boat across the English Channel this year has exceeded 40,000, according to preliminary figures from the Ministry of Defense.
Under Mr. Sunak’s leadership, there was something closer between Britain and France. signed a new agreement to stop the growing number of small boats carrying migrants on the busy waterway between them.
But crossing points remain a sensitive issue for the ruling Conservative Party’s message on immigration as the country experiences a tumultuous year. three prime ministers in a row.
Ms. Braverman, the interior secretary, said in October that her “dream” was to have a flight carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda before Christmas.
The Interior Ministry has affirmed in multiple statements that Rwanda is a “safe and secure country with a long track record in assisting asylum seekers” and that it will “continue to vigorously defend the relationship between the two countries.” partnership in court.”
Lewis Mudge, Central Africa director for Human Rights Watch, said the trial had made it “very clear” that the Home Office and the Foreign Office were both fully aware of the “terrible human rights record” terrible” of Rwanda.
By turning a blind eye to evidence of extrajudicial killings, torture, political repression and more, Britain is “encouraging the Rwandan authorities to continue their unabated abuses, ” he said.
“Choosing to enter into a refugee partnership with a government that prides itself on the assassinations and demonstrations of political opponents abroad, some of whom had refugee status at the time.” That shows how much the UK is willing to shirk its own responsibilities for asylum seekers,” added Mr Mudge.
The case against the government was brought by the charity group Asylum Aid and is one of several that have challenged the legality of the policy.
In a September hearing in other case brought by aid groups, individuals and a union representing border force officers, the Supreme Court heard evidence that government advisers warned against making the plan. this scheme because of concerns it may very well be illegal under international law.
Laura Kyrke-Smith, executive director of the UK International Rescue Committee said: “This ruling does not change the fact that government evidence shows that containment measures such as the one planned by Rwanda will will not stop those desperate from embarking on the perilous journey across the strait.”
“Rather than focusing on ineffective containment measures, the government should uphold its shared global responsibility to protect refugees and establish safe routes for asylum seekers.” she added.
In a statement, Yvette Cooper, who speaks for the opposition Labor Party on family issues, described the policy as “a disastrous distraction from the urgent action the government should take to tackle the problem.” hunt down criminal gangs and get rid of the asylum system.” It’s “impossible, unethical” and “expensive,” she added.
Abdi Latif Dahir Contribution reports from Nairobi, Kenya.
