Broadway

Complete News World

UK: Court approves Rwandan extradition |  tagesschau.de

UK: Court approves Rwandan extradition | tagesschau.de

Status: 12/19/2022 1:56 pm

The Conservative government in Great Britain wants to deport Rwandan immigrants – sparking protests. A court now classifies the plan as legal, but has criticized the implementation.

A British court has upheld the controversial UK-Rwanda immigration deal. Sending migrants who have entered the UK illegally to Rwanda in East Africa and applying for asylum there, regardless of their status, is in line with the Refugee Convention, the High Court in London has ruled.

Judge: Inadequate consideration of plaintiffs’ circumstances

However, each individual case should be carefully examined, he said. Furthermore, the Ministry of Home Affairs did not adequately consider the individual circumstances of the eight refugees who complained against the Ministry of Home Affairs. Their cases should be reconsidered. There may be more processes. Another hearing is scheduled for January.

Priti Patel, the then home minister, agreed extradition arrangements with the Rwandan leadership in the spring. It stipulates that migrants can apply for asylum in Rwanda and – if granted – live there. If granted asylum, they may have to stay in Rwanda rather than return to the UK. London is paying Rwanda 120 million pounds (about 137 million euros) for this.

Appeals are possible

The European Court of Human Rights stopped the first plane carrying migrants to Rwanda in June. Human rights groups consider the government’s plan illegal, unenforceable and inhumane. They also refer to the poor human rights situation in Rwanda. Refugee organizations also complained about the plan in Great Britain. After the verdict, they were disappointed. They are said to be likely to appeal against the verdict.

The growing number of people illegally crossing the English Channel into the UK has long been a thorn in the side of the government in London. One of Brexit’s promises is to control immigration and control one’s own borders. Critics point out that there are no legal channels of entry for asylum seekers.