U.K. Court Upholds Policy to Deport Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/world/europe/uk-rwanda-asylum-seekers-high-court.html

Version 0 of 1.

LONDON — A court on Monday ruled in favor of a British government plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda but also said that specific deportation cases should be reconsidered, leaving doubt as to when — or whether — the highly contentious policy would be put into action.

Britain’s move to outsource asylum applications to Rwanda is intended to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats, and Monday’s ruling in the High Court in London follows the deaths of four people who lost their lives last week making the perilous voyage.

But it also comes against the 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 plans to tackle Britain’s big backlog in asylum claims and to fast-track the return of most Albanians seeking refugee status.

Advocacy groups say that the processing of asylum claims in Rwanda, whose human rights record has been criticized, would violate international law and would not deter those risking the dangerous journey.

In Monday’s ruling, the court decided that, in principle, the Rwanda policy does not break the law and is consistent with the government’s legal obligations, including those imposed by Parliament with the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Nevertheless it also ruled that the cases of eight people who were initially scheduled for deportation to Rwanda had not been properly considered, and it ordered a new review of them by the home secretary.

“The home secretary must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons why he should not be relocated to Rwanda,” read an official summary of the ruling.

That is likely to encourage any future deportees to mount legal challenges to stop them being put on flights to Rwanda, experts say. “I am skeptical that a single airplane will go,” said Adam Wagner, a civil liberties lawyer, who added that lawyers representing those arriving in Britain in small boats will have to be given time to assess their cases.

“Inevitably the people who come over on boats are going to have complex life stories,” Mr. Wagner said. “I think the policy has always looked like a stunt.”

Architects of the strategy described the ruling as an important moment, and the government said that it welcomed the judgment and was committed to defending the policy against any future legal challenges.

“We have always maintained that this policy is lawful, and today the court has upheld this,” Suella Braverman, the home secretary, said in a statement. “I am committed to making this partnership work — my focus remains on moving ahead with the policy as soon as possible. ”

Despite the legal victory for the government, few believe that the policy is likely to be put in place soon, at least at any scale.

Charities are likely to appeal the ruling from the High Court, which, though not the top judicial authority in the country, deals with the most important noncriminal cases. Even if the government wins again, it will face court battles against specific deportations.

“Whatever happens, it is unlikely that more than a relatively small number would ever be removed, though,” wrote Colin Yeo, an immigration lawyer, in a legal commentary. For one thing, Rwanda has indicated so far that it will accept a few hundred per year, he said, adding: “secondly, the home office is pretty terrible at removing anyone anywhere at the moment.”

Under a deal with Rwanda, Britain is paying more than 120 million pounds, or about $147 million, to finance opportunities for those sent to the small African nation, including education and training in job skills and languages. Those who were granted asylum in Rwanda would not be able to return to Britain.

The policy has already faced a number of complications and setbacks since it was introduced in April by Priti Patel, then the home secretary.

The initial announcement raised anxiety among asylum seekers, was denounced by many opposition lawmakers and prompted major concerns among international rights groups.

In June, a small number of people who had arrived in Britain by boat were told that they would be sent to Rwanda. But the orders were challenged, and the flight was ultimately grounded. The plan was left in further disarray when a charter airline pulled out, but the government vowed to press on.

The total number of people arriving by small boat across the English Channel this year has surpassed 40,000, according to preliminary figures from the Ministry of Defense.

Under Mr. Sunak’s leadership there has been something of a rapprochement between Britain and France which signed a new agreement to stem the growing number of small boats carrying migrants over the busy waterway between them.

However the crossings have remained a sensitive issue for the governing Conservative Party’s messaging around immigration as it endured a tumultuous year that has seen three prime ministers in quick succession.

Ms. Braverman, the home secretary, said in October that it would be her “dream” to have a flight with asylum seekers leave for Rwanda before Christmas.

The Home Office has maintained in multiple statements that Rwanda is a “safe and secure country with a strong track record of supporting asylum seekers,” and that it would “continue to robustly defend the partnership in the courts.”

Lewis Mudge, the Central Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said that the judicial process had made it “abundantly clear” that Britain’s Home Office and Foreign Office were both fully aware of Rwanda’s “abysmal rights record.”

By turning a blind eye to evidence of extrajudicial killings, torture, political repression and more, Britain is “emboldening the Rwandan authorities to continue to commit abuse unabated,” he said.

“The choice to enter into an asylum partnership with a government that takes pride in the assassinations and renditions of political opponents abroad, some of whom had refugee status at the time, shows just how far the U.K. is willing to go to shirk its own responsibilities to asylum seekers,” Mr. Mudge added.

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 another case brought by aid groups, individuals and a union representing border-force officers, the High Court heard evidence that the government’s own advisers had warned against introducing the plan over fears it was most likely illegal under international law.

“This ruling does not change the fact that the government’s own evidence shows that deterrence measures such as the Rwanda plan will fail to stop desperate people embarking on dangerous journeys across the channel,” said Laura Kyrke-Smith, executive director of International Rescue Committee U.K.

“Instead of focusing on ineffective deterrence measures, the government should uphold its shared global responsibility for refugee protection and establish safe routes for asylum seekers,” she added.

In a statement, Yvette Cooper, who speaks for the opposition Labour Party on home affairs issues, described the policy as “a damaging distraction from the urgent action the government should be taking to go after the criminal gangs and sort out the asylum system.” It was, she added, “unworkable, unethical,” and “extortionately expensive.”

Abdi Latif Dahir contributed reporting from Nairobi, Kenya.