The British authorities’s extremely contested plan to fly some asylum seekers to Rwanda suffered a major setback on Thursday when one of many nation’s high courts dominated in opposition to the transfer to deport would-be refugees earlier than their claims are assessed.
In a judgment delivered in London, the Court of Appeal mentioned that Rwanda was not a protected nation for asylum seekers. In doing so, the judges reversed a ruling in December by the High Court, which dismissed most authorized challenges to the plan.
The choice on Thursday was not unanimous, with one of many three judges taking the other view.
“The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful,” mentioned Ian Burnett, the lord chief justice.
The choice is unlikely to be the ultimate phrase in what has already been a protracted authorized battle over the federal government’s offshoring plans, which have been fiercely criticized by activists and human rights teams. The authorities is anticipated to attraction to Britain’s Supreme Court to attempt to overturn the choice.
The authorities hopes its settlement with Rwanda, which was struck final yr, will deter asylum seekers from making the harmful crossing from France to the southern coast of England on small, usually unseaworthy boats.
The political stakes are excessive, too, as a result of, amid rising pressure throughout the Conservative authorities over a rise in immigration, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain has promised to “stop the boats” — making his hard-line coverage one of many 5 central goals of his management.
Advocacy teams say that flying asylum seekers to Rwanda, whose human rights file has been criticized, would violate worldwide legislation and wouldn’t essentially deter these risking the perilous journey throughout the English Channel.
Source: www.nytimes.com