Global Courant
A court in Britain ruled today that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is illegal, dealing a blow to the Conservative administration’s plans to stop immigration through the dangerous English Channel corridor.
In a majority decision, the three-judge panel stated that Rwanda cannot be considered “a safe third country” for sending migrants from different countries, reports the Voice of America.
However, the judges said that the policy of deporting asylum seekers to another country is not illegal in itself and the government in turn announced that it will appeal the decision to the British High Court. She has until July 6 to submit the request.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that he respects the decision of the court, but he deeply disagrees with its conclusions.
Mr Sunak has vowed to “stop the boats”, a reference to vessels overloaded with migrants arriving from northern France in the hope of settling in Britain. Over 45 people arrived in Britain crossing the English Channel during 2022. Some of them lost their lives during the journey.
The British government and the Rwandan government agreed more than a year ago that some of the migrants who arrive secretly in Britain or by boat will be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims will be processed. Those granted asylum will stay in this East African country and not in Britain.
The British government says the policy will disrupt the business model of criminal networks that take migrants on the perilous journey through one of the busiest maritime shipping areas.
Human rights groups say it is immoral and inhumane to send people more than 6,400 kilometers away to a country they do not want to live in and say most migrants crossing the English Channel are desperate people with no authorized way to come to Britain. The organizations also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.
Britain’s High Court ruled in December that the policy is legal and does not breach Britain’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention or other international agreements.
But the court allowed a group of plaintiffs, including asylum seekers from Iraq, Iran and Syria who face deportation under the government’s plan, to legally challenge the decision on whether the plan is “systematically unfair” and whether asylum seekers would be safe. in Rwanda.
In a partial victory for the government, the appeals court ruled on Thursday that Britain’s international obligations did not preclude the removal of asylum seekers to a safe third country.
But two of the three judges ruled that Rwanda was not safe because its asylum system had “serious deficiencies”. They said asylum seekers “would face the real risk of being returned to their countries of origin”, where they could be ill-treated.
Global Courantl
