London, June 7, GNA – The British Home Office has begun issuing letters to asylum seekers telling them that they will be sent to Rwanda on June 14 to claim refuge there.

People who have taken “dangerous, unnecessary, and illegal journeys, including crossing the [English] Channel, are among those being relocated there” the UK Home Office said in a statement last week.

The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said the “notices of intent” informed “some individuals that they were in scope for relocation”.

She added: “The removal direction confirms that they will be going to Rwanda and when.

“The first flight is expected to take place…on 14 June.”
She said Home Office officials were speaking with all individuals to “ensure the process is fully understood and people are given the appropriate support ahead of departure”.

Ms Patel went on: “Once in Rwanda, there is a generous support package, including up to five years of training, accommodation, and healthcare on arrival.

“Under this partnership the UK is also investing an initial £120 million into the economic development and growth of Rwanda… where [the asylum seekers] will be able to rebuild their lives in safety.”

However, the process is fraught with controversy and confusion, according to immigration lawyers and human rights groups.

For instance, according to the British newspaper, The Guardian, the majority of the first group of 100 earmarked for Rwanda are from Sudan although Sudanese were not the largest group arriving on small boats from France in the first quarter of 2022.
The newspaper said that only 137 Sudanese were in this group while Afghans were at the top of the list with 1,094 arrivals followed by Iranians (722).

But Ms Patel spoke of the need for the UK government to overhaul the asylum system, which she said was “currently costing the UK taxpayer £1.5 billion a year”.

The ultimate aim was “to create a fair but firm immigration system [and] break the evil people smugglers’ business model”.

The initial impression among asylum seekers who had made the perilous boat trip across the English Channel was that their claims would be dealt with in Rwanda and those who were genuine refugees would be returned to the UK for settlement.

But, Colin Yeo, a British immigration and asylum barrister and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website, has disabused their minds of this.

He noted: “The theory is that once in Rwanda, their asylum claims will be assessed there and Rwanda will either (a) grant them status as refugees or (b) remove them back to their country of origin.

“They will never get a right to return to the UK: their removal from our country is intended to be permanent.”

He continued: “Theory is unlikely to be matched by reality.

“The asylum system in Rwanda is thought to be very under-resourced, meaning that individual decisions may not be reached for years.

“That is not to criticise Rwanda’s record on hosting refugees.”

According to the UNHCR, Rwanda hosts around 127,000 refugees, mainly from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi.

Meanwhile, Care4Calais, a charity supporting refugees in the UK, Northern France and Belgium, said that asylum seekers were getting desperate after receiving their notices of removal.

It said: “Priti Patel says the Rwanda plan will offer migrants ‘an opportunity to build prosperous lives in safety’.

“However, every single one of the people we have spoken to is shocked and traumatised at the thought of being forcibly sent.”

As the legal arguments rage back and forth, Free Movement said: “These notices [by the UK Home Office] are not decisions or removal directions.

“If the person served with the notice is in detention, they are told that they must respond within seven days.

“If they are not in detention, the deadline is 14 days.

“The shorter timeframe for people in detention is presumably because of the supposition that legal advice is available through the Detained Duty Advice Scheme.
“The problems with this are well-known,” Free Movement added.

But Ms Patel has been adamant about the UK government’s position on the issue.
She said the announcement of the notice of intent “is another critical step towards delivering that partnership and, while we know attempts will now be made to frustrate the process and delay removals, I will not be deterred and remain fully committed to delivering what the British public expect.”

GNA

London, June 7, GNA – The British Home Office has begun issuing letters to asylum seekers telling them that they will be sent to Rwanda on June 14 to claim refuge there.

People who have taken “dangerous, unnecessary, and illegal journeys, including crossing the [English] Channel, are among those being relocated there” the UK Home Office said in a statement last week.

The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said the “notices of intent” informed “some individuals that they were in scope for relocation”.

She added: “The removal direction confirms that they will be going to Rwanda and when.

“The first flight is expected to take place…on 14 June.”
She said Home Office officials were speaking with all individuals to “ensure the process is fully understood and people are given the appropriate support ahead of departure”.

Ms Patel went on: “Once in Rwanda, there is a generous support package, including up to five years of training, accommodation, and healthcare on arrival.

“Under this partnership the UK is also investing an initial £120 million into the economic development and growth of Rwanda… where [the asylum seekers] will be able to rebuild their lives in safety.”

However, the process is fraught with controversy and confusion, according to immigration lawyers and human rights groups.

For instance, according to the British newspaper, The Guardian, the majority of the first group of 100 earmarked for Rwanda are from Sudan although Sudanese were not the largest group arriving on small boats from France in the first quarter of 2022.
The newspaper said that only 137 Sudanese were in this group while Afghans were at the top of the list with 1,094 arrivals followed by Iranians (722).

But Ms Patel spoke of the need for the UK government to overhaul the asylum system, which she said was “currently costing the UK taxpayer £1.5 billion a year”.

The ultimate aim was “to create a fair but firm immigration system [and] break the evil people smugglers’ business model”.

The initial impression among asylum seekers who had made the perilous boat trip across the English Channel was that their claims would be dealt with in Rwanda and those who were genuine refugees would be returned to the UK for settlement.

But, Colin Yeo, a British immigration and asylum barrister and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website, has disabused their minds of this.

He noted: “The theory is that once in Rwanda, their asylum claims will be assessed there and Rwanda will either (a) grant them status as refugees or (b) remove them back to their country of origin.

“They will never get a right to return to the UK: their removal from our country is intended to be permanent.”

He continued: “Theory is unlikely to be matched by reality.

“The asylum system in Rwanda is thought to be very under-resourced, meaning that individual decisions may not be reached for years.

“That is not to criticise Rwanda’s record on hosting refugees.”

According to the UNHCR, Rwanda hosts around 127,000 refugees, mainly from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi.

Meanwhile, Care4Calais, a charity supporting refugees in the UK, Northern France and Belgium, said that asylum seekers were getting desperate after receiving their notices of removal.

It said: “Priti Patel says the Rwanda plan will offer migrants ‘an opportunity to build prosperous lives in safety’.

“However, every single one of the people we have spoken to is shocked and traumatised at the thought of being forcibly sent.”

As the legal arguments rage back and forth, Free Movement said: “These notices [by the UK Home Office] are not decisions or removal directions.

“If the person served with the notice is in detention, they are told that they must respond within seven days.

“If they are not in detention, the deadline is 14 days.

“The shorter timeframe for people in detention is presumably because of the supposition that legal advice is available through the Detained Duty Advice Scheme.
“The problems with this are well-known,” Free Movement added.

But Ms Patel has been adamant about the UK government’s position on the issue.
She said the announcement of the notice of intent “is another critical step towards delivering that partnership and, while we know attempts will now be made to frustrate the process and delay removals, I will not be deterred and remain fully committed to delivering what the British public expect.”

GNA