Court: UK plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is legal

LONDON (AP):

Britain’s High Court ruled on Monday that a plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is legal, but the government must consider the circumstances of each case before deporting anyone, a judgment that sets the controversial policy up for further legal battles.

Several asylum seekers, aid groups and a border officials’ union filed lawsuits to stop the Conservative government acting on a deportation agreement with Rwanda that is intended to deter migrants from trying to reach the UK on risky journeys across the English Channel.

The UK plans to send some migrants who arrive in the UK as stowaways or in small boats to the East African country, where their asylum claims would be processed. Those granted asylum would stay in Rwanda, rather than returning to the UK.

“The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda, rather than in the United Kingdom,” said Clive Lewis, one of two justices who made the ruling.

The judges said the policy did not breach Britain’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention or other international agreements. But they added that the government “must decide if there is anything about each person’s particular circumstances”, which meant they should not be sent to Rwanda, and had failed to do that for the eight claimants in the case.

UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has called the Channel crossings an “invasion of our southern coast,” responded to the ruling by saying it “thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership”.

“The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we will break the business model of the evil gangs” of people smugglers, Braverman told lawmakers in the House of Commons.

The immigration spokesperson for the opposition Labour Party, Yvette Cooper, slammed the plan as “unworkable, unethical (and) extremely expensive”.

Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo said the court ruling was “a positive step in our quest to contribute innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis”.

But Rwandan opposition lawmaker Frank Habineza said it was wrong to send migrants to Rwanda, a densely populated nation with limited resources.

“This is not sustainable,” Habineza told AP.

Refugee groups said they would consult their lawyers about challenging the ruling. The judges set another hearing in the case for January 16.

Enver Solomon, head of the charity Refugee Council, said the Rwanda plan was “a cruel policy that will cause great human suffering”.

Paul O’Connor of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents border staff, called the government’s policy “morally reprehensible”.

More than 44,000 people who crossed the Channel in small boats have arrived in Britain this year, and several have died in the attempt, including four last week when a boat capsized in freezing weather.