:strip_icc()/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_08fbf48bc0524877943fe86e43087e7a/internal_photos/bs/2021/8/q/f1JEu1R7SW8wroz6e41w/privacidade-home-faixa.jpg)
The British government suffered a political setback on Thursday after the Court of Appeal for England and Wales overturned a December ruling by the High Court that ruled that a plan to send migrants and asylum seekers to Rwanda was illegal. There is a “safe country” and a “poor” asylum system.
“The judgment of the High Court was reversed to establish that Rwanda is a safe third country. As long as there are no deficiencies in asylum procedures [do Ruanda] are being corrected, it is illegal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda,” says one Summary A judicial decision approved by the majority of judges in that case.
However, the Conservative government has announced that it will appeal the ruling to the UK’s highest judicial body, the Supreme Court.
The UK government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, the Court of Appeal said. https://t.co/pe3OTvJ3lx pic.twitter.com/LMB4Xjx37V
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 29, 2023
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in a statement that he “respected” the court’s ruling but “deeply disagreed with its conclusions”. “Rwanda is a safe country. The Supreme Court agreed. UNHCR has its own program for Libyan refugees in Rwanda. We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against this verdict,” he said.
“This country and your government should decide who comes here, not the criminal gangs,” he shot back. “I’ll do whatever it takes to make it happen.”
Created by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s team, the plan in question was negotiated with the Rwandan government in response to the English Channel’s record number of registrations (more than 40,000 by 2022), which will receive funding to accommodate the migrants. It is now one of the main project flags of the conservative administration led by Rishi Sunak.
Following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, the first deportations of migrants were suspended in June last year, but the High Court of England and Wales overturned the suspension until the end of 2022.
Following the High Court’s decision, Home Secretary Suella Braverman in December said she intended to begin deporting migrants to the African country, six thousand kilometers from British territory, this year.
The Conservatives’ immigration plan has been criticized by all opposition parties, many Conservative MPs, former Prime Minister Theresa May, the United Nations, the European Commission, the Anglican Church and hundreds of human rights organizations and refugee advocates.
This country and your government should decide who comes here, not the criminal gangs.
My report on today’s verdict?? pic.twitter.com/VMvYBbs0Oz
— Rishi Sunak (@Rishi Sunak) June 29, 2023
However, the plan is a major point of contention Proposal for Illegal Migration ActThe law was introduced by the government in March ToriMigrants deemed “irregular” through the Channel or other means can be arrested, deported and barred from seeking political asylum in the country and empowers the Home Office to transfer them to their home countries. “To safe third countries”.
It is precisely this law that the British Court of Appeal is now contesting in response to appeals brought by ten people – natives of Albania, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam – who arrived in the UK on small boats. crossed the English Channel; and Asylum Aid, an organization that protects the rights and supports migrants.
“Majority decision [dos juízes] (…) The shortcomings of Rwanda’s asylum system give sufficient reason to believe that persons sent to Rwanda are at real risk of persecution and refoulement to other countries. “Inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim to asylum,” the court explained.
In that sense, Rwanda is not a ‘safe third country’. “This decision is based on evidence presented to the High Court that Rwanda’s asylum decision-making system was inadequate in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Rwandan accord,” he added.
“The Court unanimously accepted that the assurances given by the Government of Rwanda were given in good faith and to remedy any deficiencies in its asylum procedures. However, most believe that the evidence presented does not demonstrate that the necessary changes have been reliably implemented”, it continues.
“Consequently, sending someone to Rwanda is a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Parliament requires the government to comply with (Human Rights Act, 1998, Article 6)”, he concludes.
“Internet evangelist. Writer. Hardcore alcoholaholic. Tv lover. Extreme reader. Coffee junkie. Falls down a lot.”
More Stories
The UK makes it illegal to use passwords like ‘12345’ on devices; understand
Rights group files case against UK immigration policy
Manta Ray | An autonomous Stingray-shaped drone has completed testing in the US