Examining the UK’s Decision to Remove Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

Table of Contents

1. Introduction to the UK government’s Rwanda policy
2. Overview of the judicial review claims against the policy
3. Analysis of the High Court’s ruling on the policy’s legality
4. Evaluation of the SSHD’s implementation of the policy in relation to individual claimants
5. Conclusion and implications of the ruling for future asylum cases

The UK government’s Rwanda policy is a policy that allows the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to decide not to consider the asylum claims of certain individuals in the UK and instead remove them to Rwanda. Once in Rwanda, these individuals will have their asylum claims dealt with.

What was the recent High Court ruling on the UK government’s Rwanda policy?

On 19 December 2022, the High Court released its judgment in a judicial review case concerning the government’s Rwanda policy. The policy allows the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse to determine asylum claims of certain individuals in the UK and instead remove them to Rwanda. Once in Rwanda, it is the responsibility of the country to consider the asylum claims and provide protection to recognized refugees.

What were the claims made in the judicial review case?

In the judicial review case, claims were made against the UK government’s Rwanda policy on the grounds that it was unlawful. The claimants argued that the policy violates their human rights by removing them to a country where they may face persecution or mistreatment.

What did the High Court rule in the case?

The High Court ruled that the UK government’s Rwanda policy is lawful. The Court held that the policy is a reasonable and proportionate response to the challenges posed by the large number of asylum seekers in the UK, and that it does not violate the human rights of those affected by it.

What are the two decisions involved in the UK government’s Rwanda policy and how does the SSHD handle asylum and human rights claims?

The UK government’s policy allows the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to decide not to process asylum claims made by certain individuals in the UK and instead remove them to Rwanda. The SSHD is then responsible for considering their asylum claims and granting them protection if they are recognized as refugees. This policy involves two decisions: first, a determination that the asylum claim is inadmissible, and second, a decision to remove the asylum claimant to Rwanda. When making these decisions, the SSHD also certifies the asylum claim, which limits the individual’s rights of appeal and lifts the prohibition on removal while the claim is still pending. Additionally, the SSHD may also certify any human rights claim challenging removal to Rwanda as clearly unfounded, effectively removing the individual’s right of appeal.

To make an inadmissibility decision, the SSHD must be certain that the asylum seeker could have applied for asylum in a safe third country (not necessarily Rwanda) but did not do so and was not prevented from doing so due to exceptional circumstances. This requirement was previously stated in paragraph 345B of the Immigration Rules, but has since been revised and is now included in section 80C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Who brought the judicial review claims against the UK government’s Rwanda policy?

Individuals affected by the SSHD’s policy brought legal challenges, known as judicial review claims, against the policy and the decisions made about their asylum and human rights claims. The Public and Commercial Services Union, Detention Action, and Care4Calais also brought judicial review claims, but the Divisional Court ruled that they did not have the necessary standing to do so. The claimants argued that the SSHD’s Rwanda policy was flawed and that the decisions made about their specific cases were unjust.

Did the High Court in the UK rule that the government’s Rwanda policy is lawful?

Yes, the High Court in the UK ruled that the government’s Rwanda policy, which allows the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to decide not to determine the asylum claims of certain individuals in the UK and instead remove them to Rwanda for consideration of their asylum claims and potential protection as refugees, is lawful. The Court determined that the SSHD had fulfilled her obligation to ensure that there are adequate procedures in place in Rwanda to properly determine asylum claims and prevent the risk of refoulement, as well as her duty to make reasonable enquiries. The Court also found that the SSHD was justified in relying on assurances from the Rwandan government and in concluding that the asylum system in Rwanda was adequate and that conditions in Rwanda do not pose a risk of ill-treatment.

The High Court rejected the challenges to the government’s Rwanda policy, finding that it was compatible with EU law and the Refugee Convention. The policy allows the Secretary of State for the Home Department to decide not to determine the asylum claims of certain individuals in the UK, but instead to remove them to Rwanda. There, Rwanda will be responsible for considering their asylum claims and providing protection if they are recognized as refugees. The policy was found to have the potential to be operated lawfully, and therefore was not unlawful, based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] 1WLR 3931. The High Court also determined that provisions of EU law requiring a connection between the safe third country of removal and the asylum claimant were not retained EU law and therefore were not considered in the case.

How did the Court respond to the flawed implementation of the Rwanda policy in the case of individual Claimants?

The High Court ruled that the Rwanda policy, which allows the Secretary of State for the Home Department to decide not to determine the asylum claims of certain individuals in the UK and instead remove them to Rwanda to have their claims considered there, is lawful. However, the Court found that the policy was implemented improperly in the cases of eight individual claimants and therefore quashed the inadmissibility and removal decisions, as well as any human rights decisions, for these individuals. These decisions will need to be reevaluated before the policy can be applied to these individuals.

The UK government’s Rwanda policy has faced significant scrutiny and legal challenges. However, the recent High Court ruling found the policy to be lawful, with the exception of the flawed implementation in the cases of eight individual claimants. It is important for individuals affected by this policy to seek legal advice and representation to ensure that their asylum claims are properly considered and their rights are protected. Our solicitors can help navigate the complex legal process and advocate on behalf of the clients to achieve the best possible outcome.