UK plans to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda: Court

The UN is trying to show that Rwanda is not a safe country to receive these people. Agency testimony is decisive.

The UK Court of Appeal overturned the government’s decision to deport migrants to Rwanda. The decision by the three-judge panel contradicted the initial version, which talked about the possibility of migrants moving to that country or another “safe third country”.

It is the latest development in a case that has sparked controversy in the UK after the British government announced a plan to restrict the movement of migrants across the English Channel.

“Until the decision that Rwanda is a safe third country is reversed and deficiencies in its asylum procedures are remedied, the deportation of asylum seekers is illegal,” the judge said.

According to the bill put forward by the British government, people who have entered the country illegally, if it is deemed safe, would be arrested and quickly sent back to their home country or to a third country such as Rwanda.

The decision contradicts another in December, which deemed it legal to transfer these people to the African country. The appeal was filed by an anti-law and pro-immigration group, but also by various organizations, including the United Nations (UN), represented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

In a hearing that lasted four days, it was precisely the UNHCR that presented one of the strongest arguments: a report on human rights violations in migrant-sending countries, including Rwanda. The same report, which reported evictions and arbitrary arrests, made clear to the British court that the government could not guarantee that similar situations would not occur.

Despite ruling against the United Kingdom and Rwandan governments, the Court of Appeal guarantees that there was no political motive for taking it. “The court makes it clear that this decision has no say in Rwandan policy. It is a matter for the government alone and the court has no say in it,” the judge said.

“The only concern of the court is that the policy is in conformity with the law passed by the Parliament,” he added. And the conclusion was clear: the “defective” conditions of the system in Rwanda did not warrant compliance with this law.