The UK court said the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is illegal because it's too risky. Rwanda's system for helping asylum seekers isn't good enough, and there's a real chance people would be sent back to dangerous places. A separate legal argument about EU rules was also rejected.
Key Facts
- •The UK government's policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for asylum processing.
- •Challenge to the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy by asylum seekers.
- •The policy's implementation under paragraphs 345A to 345D of the Immigration Rules.
- •The Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) between the UK and Rwanda.
- •Concerns about Rwanda's asylum system, including refoulement risks.
- •The role of the UNHCR's evidence in assessing the risks.
- •The relevance of Rwanda's past non-compliance with similar assurances given to Israel.
- •A challenge based on retained EU law, specifically the Procedures Directive.
Legal Principles
Principle of non-refoulement
Refugee Convention, UNCAT, ICCPR, ECHR
Safe third country concept
Paragraph 345B of the Immigration Rules, Article 27 of the Procedures Directive
Judicial review of governmental decisions
Common law and Human Rights Act 1998
Principle of Legality
Common Law
Outcomes
The Rwanda policy is unlawful.
Substantial grounds exist to believe that removing asylum seekers to Rwanda exposes them to a real risk of refoulement due to inadequacies in Rwanda's asylum system and its past record.
ASM's cross-appeal based on retained EU law is dismissed.
The relevant provisions of the Procedures Directive ceased to be part of UK domestic law due to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020.