In a significant blow to the Conservative administration’s efforts to deter risky journeys across the English Channel, a British court has deemed the UK government’s Rwanda asylum plan as unlawful. This ruling has far-reaching implications for the practice of transferring asylum seekers to third countries.
According to David Cantor, an expert in refugee law, such agreements with governments that have weak asylum procedures and questionable safety standards could face similar challenges. Cantor, the director of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study, believes that countries with robust court structures and asylum procedures are less likely to entertain such schemes.
In a split two-to-one decision, the Court of Appeal judges concluded that Rwanda cannot be considered a “safe third country” for accepting migrants from any nation. However, the judges clarified that the deportation of asylum seekers to a safe country is not inherently illegal. Consequently, the UK government intends to challenge this ruling at the UK Supreme Court before the deadline of July 6.
Even if the Rwanda Asylum plan is eventually deemed legal, the actual number of individuals who may be sent to Rwanda remains uncertain. The government’s own assessment recognizes that the process would be exorbitantly expensive, estimated at £169,000 ($214,000) per person. Nevertheless, the government remains committed to the idea and is in the process of drafting legislation that would prevent individuals who arrive in the UK by small boats or unauthorized means from applying for asylum. The proposed bill would necessitate the detention and deportation of such arrivals to their home country or a safe third nation.
Reacting to the Court of Appeal’s decision on the Rwanda Asylum plan, the UK’s Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, expressed her disappointment and disagreed with the judgment. She criticized the top judge’s ruling, emphasizing the government’s intent to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as part of their efforts to address the rising influx of illegal arrivals. Braverman argued that the situation was spiraling out of control, citing the arrival of 45,000 individuals in the UK through illegal means last year, which incurred a daily cost of £6 million ($7.5 million) in hotel accommodations borne by British taxpayers. She stressed the need for systemic change and a revision of laws to effectively curb these activities.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, accused the government of breaking the system and labeled the Rwanda Asylum plan as nothing more than a gimmick. Starmer highlighted the low percentage of small boat arrivals whose claims had been processed (only 1%), indicating the government’s lack of an effective plan. He pointed out that the scheme had cost the taxpayer £140 million ($176 million) without any successful removals. Starmer further criticized the government for its failure to ensure the scheme’s suitability.
Given the gravity of the court’s ruling, it is likely that the UK government will appeal to the UK Supreme Court to challenge the decision.
