Asylum seekers and charities have been granted permission to appeal the High Court’s finding that the Rwanda asylum deal is lawful.
In December, judges found that the overall policy was legal but quashed the Home Office’s decisions to deport eight people selected for transfer to Kigali.
Suella Braverman hailed the ruling as a victory, claiming it “thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership” and restating her commitment to starting flights to Kigali.
But on Monday, the same judges granted permission for the claimants to challenge their finding that the Rwanda policy was lawful as a whole.
The Court of Appeal will consider arguments including whether the plan amounts to an unlawful penalty under the Refugee Convention and whether commitments on the treatment of asylum seekers made by the Rwandan government can be relied upon.
Lord Justice Lewis told a hearing that some of the issues raised “concern the lawfulness of the arrangement” and have a significant impact on the individual claimants, and all other asylum seekers who may be selected for deportation.
The claimants argued that the High Court made a mistake in deciding that written assurances given by the Rwandan government “provided sufficient guarantees to protect asylum seekers from future refoulement to countries where they would face harm, or the risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
The contested documents, including the memorandum of understanding signed by Priti Patel, were described in December’s ruling as “an important underpinning for a conclusion that Rwanda is a safe third country”.
