A British court has ruled that the UK government’s plan to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is unlawful.
In a split two-to-one ruling on Thursday, three Court of Appeal judges said Rwanda could not be considered a “safe third country” where migrants from any country could be sent.
According to ABC News, the judges said that a policy of deporting asylum seekers to another country deemed as safe was not in itself illegal, and the government said it would challenge the ruling at the UK Supreme Court.
It has until July 6 to lodge an appeal.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that “while I respect the court, I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions.”
Sunak has pledged to “stop the boats” — a reference to the overcrowded dinghies and other small craft that make the journey from northern France carrying migrants who hope to live in the UK.
More than 45,000 people arrived in Britain across the Channel in 2022, and several died in the attempt.
The UK and Rwandan governments agreed more than a year ago that some migrants who arrive in the European country as stowaways or in small boats would be sent to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed.
Those granted asylum would stay in the East African country rather than return to Britain.
The UK government argues that the policy will smash the business model of criminal gangs that ferry migrants on hazardous journeys across 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 (6,400 kilometres) to a country they don’t want to live in, and argue that most Channel migrants are desperate people who have no authorised way to come to the U.K.
They also cite Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including allegations of torture and killings of government opponents.
Britain has already paid Rwanda 140 million pounds ($170 million) under the deal, but no one has yet been deported there.
Britain's High Court ruled in December that the policy is legal and doesn't breach Britain’s obligations under the U.N. Refugee Convention or other international agreements.
But the court allowed a group of claimants, who include asylum-seekers from Iraq, Iran and Syria facing deportation under the government plan, to challenge that decision on issues including whether the plan is “systemically unfair” and whether asylum-seekers would be safe in Rwanda.
In a partial victory for the government, the appeals court ruled Thursday that the U.K.’s international obligations did not rule out removing asylum-seekers to a safe third country.
But two of the three ruled Rwanda was not safe because its asylum system had “serious deficiencies.”