The High Court in London on Monday ruled that the British government’s plan to send “asylum seekers” to Rwanda was legal.
The ruling came in response to the lawsuit filed by several asylum seekers, aid groups and a border official union.
Announcing the court’s decision, Judge Clive Lewis said it was lawful for Britain to make arrangements with the Rwanda government to send asylum seekers to the country for their asylum claims to be determined there.
“The (British) government has made arrangements with the government of Rwanda which are intended to ensure that asylum claims of people relocated to Rwanda are properly determined there.
“In those circumstances, the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the Refugee Convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the government, including the obligation imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998,” Mr Lewis said.
In April, the United Kingdom had planned to send thousands of migrants who arrived in the country by sea to Rwanda, which is about 6,400 kilometers (3,977 miles) away from its shores.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the plans to clamp down on illegal migrants.
Mr Sunak’s administration wants to restart the flights to Rwanda, despite opposition from other political parties including from international organisations like the United Nations.
The first planned deportation flight was blocked in June by a last-minute injunction from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The strategy’s lawfulness was subsequently challenged by a judicial review at London’s High Court.
The first plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was announced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and carried forward by his successors Liz Truss and now Rishi Sunak.
The government’s victory on Monday does not mean that flights can take off straight away as there might be further appeal in the British courts.
The ECHR injunction imposed during the summer prevents any immediate deportations until the conclusion of legal action in the United Kingdom.
Lawyers acting for asylum seekers from countries including Syria, Sudan, and Iraq, as well as charities and Border Force staff told the High Court during the hearing that the government’s Rwanda policy was inhumane and does not comply with human rights conventions.
They said that Rwanda, whose own human rights record is under scrutiny, does not have the capacity to process the claims, and there is a risk some migrants could be returned to countries from which they had fled, citing concern raised by government officials themselves.
Government lawyers argued that the agreement with Rwanda ensured that those who would be deported there would have a “safe and efficient” refugee status determination procedure.
Britain, however, said that the Rwanda deportation strategy would help deter migrants from making the perilous trip across the English Channel and will smash the business model of people-smuggling networks.
Supporters of the Rwanda deal said that sending migrants to the country will reduce overcrowding in processing centres and give genuine refugees a home.
Under the agreement with Rwanda, anyone judged to have entered Britain illegally is eligible for deportation, with the exception of unaccompanied children.
Deportees granted protection by Kigali would be eligible to live there but would not be permitted to return to Britain.
