Courts

Asylum seeker under threat of removal to Rwanda wins High Court permission to challenge decision

The 42-year-old man was granted leave to apply for judicial review into claims the Home Office unlawfully delayed his case until its controversial plan became operational

Rishi Sunak, UK prime minster, pictured speaking about his flagship Rwanda migration policy, in London, UK. Earlier this week Parliament finally passed the revised Safety of Rwanda Bill. Photographer: Jason Alden/Bloomberg
Rishi Sunak, UK prime minster, pictured speaking about his flagship Rwanda migration policy, in London, UK. Earlier this week Parliament finally passed the revised Safety of Rwanda Bill. Photographer: Jason Alden/Bloomberg
Alan Erwin
Fri Apr 26 2024 - 13:34

An asylum seeker under threat of removal to Rwanda has won High Court permission to challenge the Government for deferring his bid to remain in Northern Ireland.

The 42-year-old man was granted leave to apply for judicial review into claims the Home Office unlawfully delayed his case until its controversial plan to send migrants to the east African country became operational.

A judge also imposed a prohibition on removing him from the UK pending the final outcome of his legal challenge.

Lawyers for the man, an Eritrean national, predicted it could have wider implications for thousands of others facing deportation under the scheme.

READ MORE

Earlier this week Parliament finally passed the revised Safety of Rwanda Bill.

It was introduced in response to a Supreme Court ruling last November that the policy was unlawful.

The man at the centre of the legal challenge travelled by boat to the UK in 2022 and then moved to Belfast to stay with his sister, who is now a British citizen.

According to his legal team he has faced the prospect of being sent to Rwanda for the last 18 months.

Based on the Supreme Court ruling, they requested that the Home Office should abandon the threat of removal and instead deal with his asylum application without further delay.

But in February 2024 consideration of claims was put on hold until the Rwanda policy was up and running, it was contended.

Steven McQuitty KC, representing the asylum seeker, argued that his client had been kept in limbo by an unlawful failure to decide on his application.

The court was told that the Home Office is attempting to delay determinations in an entire cohort of cases until its policy is fully operational and they can be sent to Rwanda, the court was told.

Citing a high rate of approval for Eritrean nationals eligible for another fast track asylum process, Mr McQuitty submitted: “If the applicant’s claim had been admitted for determination it’s almost inevitable it would have been granted.”

Granting leave to seek a judicial review, Mr Justice McAlinden listed the case for a full hearing in October.

Speaking outside court, the man’s solicitor claimed he is among “tens of thousands of people” at threat of removal to Rwanda.

Karl McKenna of Brentnall Legal said: “Instead of dealing with his case, the Government has kept him in limbo which is now approaching two years.

“Our client hopes that the Home Office will now abandon this threat and consider his asylum case properly, though it is clear that legal clarification on the power to defer such decisions will still need to be determined by the court.”