A Ugandan asylum seeker is asking the High Court to declare that the United Kingdom cannot be declared a safe third country while it continues its policy of relocating some migrants to Rwanda.
The man, who cannot be identified due to his asylum-seeking status, wants the court to restrain the Minister for Justice from returning him to the UK until his court case has been determined.
The high court of England and Wales found last December that the partnership with Rwanda, introduced under former prime minister Boris Johnson, was lawful. It has granted permission for an appeal of its ruling.
At the Irish High Court on Monday, barrister Eamonn Dornan said his client contended that the scheme was not compliant with the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr Justice Charles Meenan questioned whether the Irish court would be allowed not to recognise the decision of London’s high court. He directed the applicant to notify the respondents – the Minister for Justice and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal – of the application seeking leave, which allows an applicant to pursue judicial review of a decision.
He adjourned the leave application.
[ UK policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda ‘lawful’Opens in new window ]
The applicant, who is in his 40s, said he left Uganda and travelled through Dubai to reach the UK in February 2020. In September 2021 he drove from the UK to Ireland, where he made a claim for international protection on the basis that he alleged he would face persecution and a real risk of suffering harm if returned to Uganda.
The man, who is being housed in a hotel in the State, claimed he had leave to remain as a student in the UK in 2010 but was subsequently refused asylum there. His appeal to that decision, he said, was dismissed in 2014.
He said he married a British citizen and was granted leave to remain there, but this expired in September 2021. He is now divorced and no longer has status in the UK, he claims.
The International Protection Office (IPO) deemed his application inadmissible because the UK was a safe third country for him, he said. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal affirmed this decision.
In his appeal to the tribunal, the man expressed a concern that, as his UK residency had expired, there was a possibility he would be sent to Rwanda or subject to what he claims would be “refoulement” to Uganda.
[ Stopping the ‘small boats’ is key to Sunak’s plan to avoid electoral annihilationOpens in new window ]
He alleged there should be no return of international protection applicants to the UK while the Rwanda arrangement was in place. He said the Minister for Justice had not designated Rwanda a safe third country.
The man wants the High Court to quash the tribunal’s decision to affirm the IPO’s recommendation to deem his application inadmissible. He should not be returned to the UK while his judicial review case is in being and the court should declare that the UK is not a safe third country, he says.
He alleges the tribunal erred in finding his contention that he would be removed to Rwanda “premature”.
There was a further error, he claims, in the tribunal’s failure to evaluate the risk to him if he were removed to Rwanda. The tribunal was wrong in finding “in effect” that Rwanda was a safe third country when no such designation had been made by the Minister.
