Global Courant
LONDON — A British court ruled on Thursday that a government plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda on a one-way ticket is illegal, striking a blow to the Conservative government’s pledge to prevent migrants from making risky journeys across the English Channel.
In a two-for-one ruling, three judges of the Court of Appeal said Rwanda cannot be considered a “safe third country” to which migrants can be sent.
But the judges said a policy of deporting asylum seekers to another country is not in itself illegal, and the government said it would challenge the ruling in the UK’s High Court. It has until July 6 to appeal.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that “while I respect the court, I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.”
Sunak has promised to “stop the boats” – a reference to the overcrowded dinghies and other small craft making the journey from northern France carrying migrants hoping to live in the UK. several died in the attempt.
The British and Rwandan governments agreed more than a year ago that some migrants who arrive in the UK as stowaways or in small boats would be sent to Rwanda where their asylum applications will be processed. Those granted asylum would remain in the East African country rather than return to Britain.
The UK government argues the policy will destroy the business model of criminal gangs who take migrants on dangerous journeys along one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.
Human rights groups say it is immoral and inhumane to send people more than 4,000 miles to a country they don’t want to live in, claiming that most Channel migrants are desperate people who have no authorized way to get to the country. UK They also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and murder of government opponents.
Britain has already paid Rwanda 140 million pounds ($170 million) under the deal, but no one has been deported there.
Britain’s Supreme Court ruled in December that the policy is legal and does not conflict with Britain’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention or other international agreements.
But the court allowed the plaintiffs, including asylum seekers from Iraq, Iran and Syria to be deported under the government plan, to challenge that decision, including whether the plan is “systemically unfair” and whether asylum seekers would be safe. are in Rwanda. .
In a partial victory for the government, the appeals court ruled on Thursday that the UK’s international obligations do not preclude the removal of asylum seekers to a safe third country.
But two out of three governed Rwanda were not safe because the asylum system had “serious flaws”. They said asylum seekers would face “a real risk of being sent back to their country of origin”, where they could face ill-treatment.
Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett – the highest judge in England and Wales – disagreed with his two colleagues. He said assurances from the Rwandan government were sufficient to ensure the migrants would be safe.
The government of Rwanda disagreed with the ruling, saying the country is “one of the safest countries in the world”.
“As a society and as a government, we have built a safe, secure, dignified environment where migrants and refugees have equal rights and opportunities with Rwandans,” said government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo. of this.”
However, Rwandan opposition leader Frank Habineza said Britain should not try to force its responsibilities on refugees.
“The UK is a bigger country than Rwanda, huge resources, unlike impoverished Rwanda,” he said. “By sending migrants to Rwanda, the UK will abdicate the responsibility of protecting those fleeing to the UK for safety.”
Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, said the verdict was “rare good news in an otherwise bleak human rights landscape in the UK”.
She urged Interior Secretary Suella Braverman, the minister in charge of immigration, to “give up this unworkable and unethical fever dream of a policy and focus her efforts on repairing our broken and neglected migration system.”
Even if the plan is eventually declared legal, it is unclear how many people could be sent to Rwanda. The government’s own assessment acknowledges that it would be extremely expensive, at an estimated £169,000 ($214,000) per person.
But it’s doubling down on the idea, drafting legislation that would ban anyone arriving in the UK in small boats or by any other unauthorized means from seeking asylum. If passed, the bill would force the government to detain and deport all such arrivals to their home countries or a safe third country.
“It is this country – and your government – that should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs,” Sunak said. “And I will do whatever it takes to make that happen.”
___
Associated Press writer Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda contributed to this story.
___
Follow AP’s coverage of global migration
