By Desmond Davies
London, Dec. 20, GNA – The High Court in London has ruled that the United Kingdom government’s plan to send refugees to Rwanda to seek asylum there is lawful.
The scheme has been beset with controversy since it was announced in April by the British government that “anyone entering the UK illegally” after January 1 this year would be sent to Rwanda, where they would apply for asylum, in a deal worth £120 million to the Rwandan government.
Since then, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), civil servants at the British Home Office, which is in charge of immigration and asylum, and over 160 human rights and campaign groups have opposed the deal.
Some of these groups have been locked in legal challenges in the courts.
On Monday, the High Court held that the Home Secretary had made a lawful decision because she had conducted a “thorough examination” of “all relevant generally available information”.
The refugee plan calls for some asylum seekers who enter the UK by boats across the English Channel to be removed from the country and sent to Rwanda where their asylum claims will be assessed in accordance with Rwandan law.
Those granted asylum will stay in Rwanda while those who are refused will be the responsibility of the Rwandan government to send them back to their country of origin.
After ruling, the UNHCR said its “longstanding and well-known concerns about the ‘externalisation’ of asylum obligations remain”.
It said in a statement: “UNHCR considers that the UK-Rwanda arrangement contravenes the UK’s international obligations and fails to meet the required standards relating to the legality and appropriateness of transfers of asylum-seekers.
“We continue to urge the government of the United Kingdom to instead pursue other measures, including cooperation with the UK’s European neighbours and fair and fast asylum procedures, that would be more humane, efficient, and cost-effective.”
Although the UNHCR was not a claimant in the proceedings, it said it advised the court on “matters of international refugee law and remain ready to provide any further advice as needed”.
“UNHCR’s role in the litigation has, throughout the case, been in our capacity as the UN Refugee Agency with a mandate to supervise the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention worldwide,” the statement added.
Commenting on the asylum plan, Colin Yeo, a British immigration and asylum barrister, said it was not as clear cut as it sounded.
“Contrary to the assertions of numerous politicians, there is no route back to the UK for those who are removed,” he said.
“The idea is that by doing this to some refugees, other refugees will be deterred from trying to come to the UK to claim asylum.”
He also pointed out that although the High Court had ruled that the plan was lawful, the legal arguments were far from over.
Mr Yeo said: “…an appeal by the claimants is inevitable, so the High Court judgment is not the last word.
“The Court of Appeal is likely to look at the case, as is the Supreme Court.
“The timescale for final resolution of the case is therefore unknown.”
He added: “In the meantime, removals to Rwanda cannot begin because of the interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which states that removal cannot take place ‘until three weeks after delivery of the final domestic decision in ongoing judicial review proceedings.’”
One of the sticking points regarding the Rwanda plan has been whether the country is safe for refugees.
Mr Yeo explained: “The court was not determining for itself whether Rwanda is a safe country or not.
“Instead, the court was deciding whether the Home Secretary’s decision that Rwanda is safe was a lawful one.
“To show that it was not a lawful decision, the claimants would have had to demonstrate some sort of legal flaw in the decision or the decision-making process, such as taking account of an irrelevant consideration, or the decision being so unreasonable that no rational Home Secretary could have reached the same conclusion.
“Whatever an outside observer’s view might be of these questions, this is not an easy type of challenge to win,” he added.
In the meantime, no flights have been made to Rwanda.
After legal challenges in the courts in London, the first flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda on June 14 was cancelled.
Mr Yeo is not confident that a huge number of refuges will be sent to Rwanda when the legal battles are finally over.
“Whatever happens, it is unlikely that more than a relatively small number would ever be removed, though,” he said.
“Firstly, Rwanda has indicated so far that it will accept a few hundred per year
“That figure could rise or further deals could be reached, but there is no sign of either eventuality at present.
“Secondly, the Home Office is terrible at removing anyone anywhere at the moment.”
GNA