The Home Office is Trying to Consign Asylum Seekers to a Life in Limbo – Byline Times

Byline Times Free News SiteByline Times Digital / Print EditionSubscriptions + BookshopFree from fear or favour

No tracking. No cookies

SubscriptionsSectionsFactArticles predominantly based on historical research, official reports, court documents and open source intelligence.ArgumentHonestly held opinions and provocative

argument based on current events or our recent reports.ReportageImmersive and current news, informed by frontline reporting and real-life accounts.CultureHistory, music, cooking, travel,

books, theatre, film – but also with an eye on the ‘culture wars’, nationalism and identity.CategoriesDemocracyUK PoliticsConservative PartySocietyMediaNewspapersPublic HealthBrexitForeign

AffairsColumns & InvestigationsEditorialWar in UkraineThe Climate EmergencyByline Times‘ coverage of the consequences of, and responses to, the climate crisisDemocracy in DangerThe

newspaper’s extensive reporting and analysis of the various threats to democracy from populism, oligarchy, dark money and online disinformation.The Cost of Living CrisisByline Times

investigates the causes and consequences of Britain’s biggest recession for 30 yearsThe Crisis in British JournalismByline Times investigates media monopolies, their proximity to

politicians, and how the punditocracy doesn’t hold power to accountIdentity, Empire and the Culture WarByline Times explores the weaponisation of Britain’s past as a key tool in a dark

project of division and distractionThe Coronavirus CrisisByline Times exposes the Government’s dangerous ‘herd immunity’ approach towards the Coronavirus pandemic, as well as how

incompetence and conspiracies contributed to the UK’s shocking death tollCronyism and CorruptionByline Times uncovers the nepotism that greases the wheels of British politics.Russian

InterferenceByline Times leads the way in exposing the anti-democratic influence of the Kremlin over the affairs of other nationsA Hostile EnvironmentJournalists & AuthorsStuart SprayFizza

QureshiDavid HenckeThomas PerrettRevd Joe HawardStaff Writers & ColumnistsHardeep MatharuAdam BienkovJosiah MortimerNafeez AhmedPeter JukesStephen ColegraveRachel DonaldDateThis yearLast

yearAbout & ContactAbout Byline TimesContact Byline TimesSubscribe & Support UsSubscriptionsGift cardsBuy back issuesBuy BooksCrowdfund campaignLog in to your accountIdentity, Empire & the

Culture WarCrisis in British JournalismWar in UkraineClimate EmergencyIsrael-Gaza ConflictInstitutionalising IslamophobiaSearch Subscriptions

ArgumentA Hostile EnvironmentThe Home Office is Trying to Consign Asylum Seekers to a Life in Limbo Brad Blitz unpicks the legal and political logic for deporting desperate individuals to

the central African nation

Brad Blitz13 June 2022A boat used by a group of people thought to be asylum seekers as they are brought in to Dover, Kent. Photo: Gareth Fuller/PA Images Your support matters:

Sign up to emails

Subscribe to Byline Times

SHARE THIS:

MailTwitterFacebookThreadsBlueskyThe Home Office is Trying to Consign Asylum Seekers to aLife in LimboBrad Blitz unpicks the legal and political logic for deporting desperate individuals to

the central African nationShareEmailTwitterFacebook Newsletter offer Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.

Sign up “I accept that the fact of removal to Rwanda will be onerous,” said High Court Justice Jonathan Swift, as he ruled that the Home Office’s planned deportation flight to Rwanda could

go ahead for some 31 asylum-seekers. 

Challenging Raza Husain QC for the claimants, who argued that the proposed deportation was unsafe and based on aspiration, Swift argued that the Home Office had set out a policy based on a

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Government of Rwanda, which while unenforceable, included information about arrangements for transfer and access to the system of asylum in Rwanda.

The judge then offered his own opinion, concluding that: “it is unlikely that persons transferred would be refused access to the system of asylum. After all, it is the very purpose of the

MoU (for asylum claims to be processed) in Rwanda.”

Similar assertions have been made by Conservative politicians, including Dover MP Natalie Elphicke ,who pointed to a package of assistance dedicated to supporting deported asylum seekers.

On the basis of facts alone, this is nonsense.

First, the issue is not about being refused access, but about the nature of any such access, and the quality of asylum protection available. There is currently no package of assistance on

offer, just a series of unenforceable promises.

Second, the UK has no experience of follow-up post removal, currently offers no services to those it has deported to third countries, and does not collect data on those removed to third

countries. They just disappear. 

Third, Rwanda has limited expertise to offer the UK. While Rwanda is currently hosting some 127,112 registered persons of concern, these are overwhelmingly from the neighbouring countries of

the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi who are housed in refugee camps. Even if camps are open, the provision of asylum support is limited, and the process of seeking asylum in Rwanda

is especially slow.

Research conducted by Shahar Shoham, Liat Bolzman and Lior Birger found that returnees were denied the opportunity to apply for asylum in Rwanda. Not surprisingly, the deportees opted to

leave.

With the first removal flight scheduled for Tuesday, activists are pinning their hopes on the Court of Appeal overturning Swift’s decision. Yet, I would caution against such optimism, since

the appeal may only deal with the judge’s decision and not the fact that critical evidence from UNHCR and other human rights authorities was deemed less relevant than the Home Office’s paper

promises.

Further, we do not need reminding how this Government, and previous governments, repeatedly violated the rule of law to pursue their agenda. As we saw with the Bigzad case, a court decision

may not stop a determined minister from removing unwanted asylum seekers, or blocking their return, even after three High Court orders and the possible charge of contempt of court.

Yet, there may be other options.

Under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, the European Court of Human Rights may issue interim measures where there is an imminent risk of irreparable damage. The procedure has been used in

similar cases to suspend a deportation order at the last minute. Now would seem to be a good time for the lawyers to fax a 10-page request to Strasbourg.

Brad Blitz is Professor of International Politics and Policy at UCL

Byline Times is brought to you by a dedicated team of journalists and contributors – producing independent, fearless, investigative and thought-provoking journalism not found in the

established media. We are regulated by Impress.

To find the nearest newsagent stocking this month’s edition, search here.

AboutContactSubscriptions

Complaints

Byline TimesByline InvestigatesByline FestivalByline TVByline SupplementByline BooksByline AudioBylines Network

Byline Media Holdings Ltd, Byline Times & Yes We Work Ltd