Letters from the Home Office to asylum seekers assured them that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was “closely involved” in the plan to send people to the East African country, the Supreme Court said. But a letter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to Home Secretary Tom Pursglove disputed that claim. “We are also concerned about the statements made in the letters indicating that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has not expressed substantial concerns about the shortcomings in the capacity of Rwanda’s asylum system,” the agency wrote. The letter came in the first legal challenge to the policy heard Friday in the Royal Court. Refugee charities have applied for an emergency interim order barring the departure of any flights, including the first, scheduled for Tuesday, pending a review of her request for judicial review. It emerged on Friday that the government had canceled the removal orders of three people who had asked the Supreme Court to prevent their deportation. The Supreme Court was informed that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had a number of concerns about the asylum process in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum – including LGBT persons – lack of legal representation and representation. Raza Husain QC, for the plaintiffs, said Patel had falsified the position of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. “These are concerns that have been communicated to the UK authorities and yet the position of Secretary of State ότι is that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has given the green light to this plan. “This is a false claim,” he said. “THE [Rwandan] the system is not secure. It’s not that it is not safe after July, it just is not safe. He may arbitrarily deny you access to it. If you do, there are concerns about impartiality. “ He continued: “The evidence is that if you are not from a neighboring country, then there are high levels of rejection.” In court documents, Home Office lawyers urged the court to reject the application, arguing that it “fails in the first instance”, adding: “The plaintiffs have not identified a serious issue to be tried, let alone the strong case they claim for the granting of relief in the trial “. In the newspapers, Rory Dunlop QC and Mathew Gullick QC told the department: “The application for temporary relief must be rejected. “Alternatively, any order for temporary relief should be restricted.” Subscribe to the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7am The claim and the application extend to “several hundred pages”, the lawyers said as they suggested that there were delays in the delivery of the documents, arguing: in the application for interim measures “. Downing Street said Boris Johnson was still optimistic that the first flight would take place on Tuesday. A spokesman for No. 10 said: “Yes. “You are aware of the court case that is ongoing today, but we have stated our position on why we believe this is the right approach.”
