Rwanda

The BBC goes to Rwanda as a court rules on the UK's plan to send asylum seekers there.

Now I have more than 600," he says. "Those interviewed said they had been targeted due to their sexual orientation or gender identity and treated worse than other detainees. But if [employers find out] your identity they'll tell you: 'Go, go, we can't work with you.'" Mohammed says he feels like his life is in limbo. I started with four staff. Unlike in some neighbouring countries, homosexual acts are not illegal in Rwanda. But responding to the London High Court ruling that the UK government's plan was legal, the Rwandan government welcomed the decision and said it stood "ready to offer asylum seekers and migrants safety and the opportunity to build a new life in Rwanda". "When I arrived here, everything was new to me. Mohammed came to this country seeking asylum. And in a report in June the UN agency said that "the efficiency and timeliness of the asylum procedure is of concern, with decisions taking up to one to two years to be issued in some cases". But in an open letter to the UK Home Office, HRW said that "in practice, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people face stigma in Rwanda". Mohammed says life in Kigali has been difficult, but he is so scared of reprisals for speaking to a journalist that he's asked me not to disclose his real name or the name of his home country, except that it is in Africa.

UN Refugee Agency had told court it was 'not rational' to argue Rwanda is a safe country for the scheme.

Director Alison Pickup said : “We urge the home secretary to re-think this inhumane policy and come up with one that can give us all faith in the asylum decision-making process. It is unworkable, unethical and extortionately expensive. “The policy isn’t a deterrent. PCS will continue our campaign to secure it.” She said the charity “continues to believe this policy is unlawful” and that it was “appalling and grotesque” for the government to outsource asylum processing for small boat migrants. However, we will fight on.

Suella Braverman has welcomed the High Court's ruling that the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful.

One that treats asylum applications with the seriousness they deserve and respects the human dignity of those seeking sanctuary here.” I don’t think, while there is possibility of further legal action, we can put a specific timeframe on it. But Ms Braverman later told the Commons the policy was “compassionate”, “pragmatic” and “rational”. Following the ruling, Ms Braverman said she has “always maintained that this policy is lawful and today the court has upheld this”. However, he said the Home Secretary “has not properly considered” the eight individuals’ cases, which meant the decisions to send them to Rwanda will be quashed and sent back to be reconsidered. Home Secretary Suella Braverman has said she is “committed” to making the plan to send migrants to Rwanda work after the High Court ruled that the policy is lawful.

The ruling comes months after the government introduced a plan to deport hundreds of potential asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Immigration lawyers and human ...

"We're seeking to ensure that none of our clients are removed to Rwanda," says Lucas. Police placed him in handcuffs soon after he arrived, he says, and he was detained for more than two months before lawyers won his release on bail. Dozens of people were pulled alive from the water, but at least four died, despite a large and rapid rescue effort. government first introduced the plan to deport hundreds of potential asylum-seekers to Rwanda, where their claims would be heard and decided by Rwandan authorities. Meanwhile, more than 45,000 migrants have arrived in small boats across the English Channel from France so far this year, compared with fewer than 30,000 in 2021. Underscoring the urgency of the situation, an inflatable vessel ran into difficulties around 30 miles west of the port city of Dover in the early hours of an icy morning on Dec.

High court did not end the home secretary's plans, but there's a long way to go before backbenchers are satisfied.

Their judgment disclosed that a similar deal between Israel and Rwanda was never assessed by the UK government before signing the deportation deal. One was sent to Syria. Ask lawyers, and they say it is more likely to be years rather than months. How long will this take to go through the courts? Suella Braverman’s self-confessed dream of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is still alive. “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom,” they ruled.

The UK's controversial policy to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda was deemed lawful by the country's High Court on Monday.

“Treating people who are in search of safety like human cargo and shipping them off to another country is a cruel policy that will cause great human suffering,” Solomon added. “We are very disappointed in the outcome of this case. Those eight cases will be sent back to the Home Office for Braverman to reassess, he said. But it also criticized Home Secretary Suella Braverman for failing to properly assess the circumstances surrounding individual people set to be moved under the scheme. But the ruling will be welcomed by the government, which has sunk in popularity and lost the faith of most voters on a number of issues, according to opinion polls. The first flight to Rwanda was set to take off on June 14, but the European Court of Human Rights stepped in at the eleventh hour, and months of legal challenges have stalled the program in the months since.

Suella Braverman has welcomed the High Court's ruling that the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful.

One that treats asylum applications with the seriousness they deserve and respects the human dignity of those seeking sanctuary here.” I don’t think, while there is possibility of further legal action, we can put a specific timeframe on it. But Ms Braverman later told the Commons the policy was “compassionate”, “pragmatic” and “rational”. Following the ruling, Ms Braverman said she has “always maintained that this policy is lawful and today the court has upheld this”. However, he said the Home Secretary “has not properly considered” the eight individuals’ cases, which meant the decisions to send them to Rwanda will be quashed and sent back to be reconsidered. Home Secretary Suella Braverman has said she is “committed” to making the plan to send migrants to Rwanda work after the High Court ruled that the policy is lawful.

In a summary of the ruling read out in court, Lord Justice Lewis said: “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for ...

The scheme is wrong in principle." There is a kinder and more effective way; giving safe passage to refugees in Calais." I don’t think, while there is possibility of further legal action, we can put a specific timeframe on it," he said. The Home Office has defended the claims against the Rwanda policy in the past, arguing the Rwandan authorities have given "detailed assurances" over the processing of asylum claims and the ongoing treatment of individuals. But Ms Braverman told the Commons on Monday that the policy was "compassionate" and "rational." In a summary of the ruling read out in court, Lord Justice Lewis said: “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom."

On Monday, judges dismissed an application from asylum-seekers, charities and civil servants' union PCS to stop the Tory government from carrying out its ...

of any transferred person,” the judges claim. There is a kinder and more effective way: giving safe passage to refugees in Calais.” But today the two judges rejected these arguments. Human Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed said: “It is a dark day for the rights of the most vulnerable and the legal protections established for those seeking sanctuary in the wake of the second world war.” In a summary of the ruling read out in court, Lord Justice Lewis said: “The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum-seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom.” Care4Calais founder Clare Moseley said: “We remain steadfast in our opposition to the Rwanda policy and in our determination to ensure that no refugee is forcibly deported.

Britain's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has got the go-ahead just as the African country edges towards 'pariah state' territory, says author Michela ...

And in the eyes of many in her own party, and the country as a whole, while this deal has just been ruled to be legal, it’s also deeply shameful. [key Congolese city of Goma](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/15/hundreds-flee-as-congos-m23-rebels-near-key-city-of-goma) and the fighting has internally displaced nearly 400,000 people – ah, the irony of sending migrants to a country so adept at creating refugees. [US-Africa summit in Washington](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-63984968) attended by nearly 50 African leaders last week, Kagame failed to win a bilateral meeting with Joe Biden. [pressuring Rwanda](https://softpower.ug/u-s-secretary-of-state-blinken-tells-kagame-to-end-rwandas-support-to-m23/) to end its support for the group, which is made up of members of Kagame’s Tutsi ethnic community. But it’s worth remembering what happened to a similar scheme signed between Rwanda and Israel. If the Home Office – as seems all too likely – starts up deportations to Kigali, Britain will be going out on a limb. What are the scheme’s chances of working? Washington, which had hoped to call in future on Rwandan forces to counter the jihadist threat bubbling up across Africa, is dismayed by Kagame’s persistent destabilisation of his own back yard. History shows that Kagame, whose government relies on foreign aid for an astonishing 74% of its annual expenditure, backs off smartly when confronted by donors working in concert. Instead, seemingly bent on making Patel appear a soft touch, she doubled down, telling the Conservative party conference it was her “dream” to see a plane taking off for Such dogged determination is explained by the flow of “small boats” across the Channel, with all their tragic human consequences. Whatever one thinks of the final ruling, the process of judicial review played its intended role, making public confidential material that was extremely awkward for a rightwing government intent on dispatching migrants out of sight and out of mind.