March 2023 – Removing Asylum Seekers to Rwanda

In order to determine that an individual could be removed, the Home Secretary first had to decide that an asylum claim was inadmissible (for example because the individual had passed through a safe third country where they failed to claim asylum) and there were no exceptional circumstances preventing the application from being made. Next, she had to determine that Rwanda was a safe third country and where individuals had raised a claim that removal would be a breach of their human rights, she also had to decide that claim.

The court dismissed the generic elements of the case holding that the Home Secretary had been entitled to conclude on the material before her that Rwanda was a safe third country and they rejected the claim that she had failed to establish that there were adequate procedures in place in Rwanda to adequately assess their asylum claims. The court also rejected claims of discrimination by three individuals as well as the argument that the requirement to make representations within a 7 day period as to why they should not be removed was systematically unfair.

However, the court went on to quash the removal certifications in a number of individual cases due to public law errors. As a result of this case, recently arrived asylum seekers who have travelled through safe third countries are likely to be considered for inadmissibility and removal to Rwanda, with the threshold now being whether it was reasonable to expect the claimant to make such a claim.

Contrast       Font size