The news came as part of written submissions by Home Office lawyers to the Supreme Court ahead of a current effort to block an deportation flight to the African country as part of the government’s controversial new policy of deporting asylum seekers. Two campaign groups – Detention Action and Care4Calais – have joined the PCS Union and four individual asylum seekers have filed a lawsuit against the Home Office after announcing that the first group of people will be sent to Rwanda on Tuesday. Downing Street said Boris Johnson still hoped the first flight to Rwanda would take place next week. A spokesman for No. 10 said: “Yes. You are aware of the case that is pending today, but we have stated our position on why we believe this is the right approach.” Those who took action had asked if the decision was in their favor, the plane would stop completely – so the decision did not only apply to the asylum seekers they represent. The Supreme Court was informed today that the expulsion policy in Rwanda is illegal in part because it was “unreasonable”. Raza Husain QC, for the people and groups who filed the claim, told the Supreme Court that the policy was illegal in part because it was “irrational.” “The foreign minister’s conclusion on Rwanda’s security was absurd. We have a very strong case for that.” 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 “. The Supreme Court has been informed that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has had a number of concerns about the asylum process in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum – including LGBT people – lack of legal representation and representation. Care4Calais says it knew about nine Afghans. 35 Sudanese? 18 Syrians. 14 Iranians; 11 Egyptians as well as Iraqis, Pakistanis, Albanians, Algerians, Chad, Eritreans, Turks and Vietnamese, who were told they could be transported on the first flight. “Tough” and “inhuman” The plan, which the government said would provide “safe and legal” routes for migrants, has been described as “inhuman” and “cruel” by human rights groups. According to the plans, those seeking illegal refuge in the country will be placed on chartered flights to Rwanda where they will enter the Rwandan asylum system and will not be considered for return to the United Kingdom. Dame Emma Thompson has described the plan to send migrants to Rwanda as “severely insane and intolerable”. Her comments on the Rwandan plan echo those of some activists and politicians, including some in the Conservative Party. It comes as the latest figures show that more than 10,000 migrants have crossed the Channel into the UK so far this year. Follow the Daily Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker James Wilson, deputy director of Detention Action, said: “In her desire to punish asylum seekers by forcing them to board a flight to Rwanda, Pretty Patel has exceeded her authority. “With the hasty implementation that we say is an illegal policy, it turns a blind eye to the many clear dangers and human rights violations that it would cause to people seeking asylum. “It’s vital that the new government policies respect and abide by the laws that we, as a society, have agreed to follow. That is why we are seeking an order not to leave this plane bound for Rwanda.” Home Office Defends ‘World-Leading Partnership’ Image: Minister of the Interior Priti Patel A Home Office spokeswoman said: “Our world-leading cooperation with Rwanda is a key part of our strategy to review the damaged asylum system. “We were clear from the beginning that we expected legal challenges, but we are determined to implement this new cooperation. “We have now issued formal instructions to the first group of people to relocate to Rwanda later this month. This marks a crucial step towards the operational implementation of the policy, which is fully compliant with international and national law.”
