Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s most important immigration policy was blown when the government’s proposals to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda were rejected by the UK’s highest court.

Asylum seekers who are already in Britain and have received threatening letters from the government can be somewhat relieved by the verdict. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is also deeply embarrassed by it, as it puts an end to his historic attempt to “stop the boats” just before what is predicted to be a challenging election year.

Thousands of migrants, mostly from South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, risk their lives to cross the border in small dinghies and enjoyment boats, and the Rwanda plan was created to discourage them. Both domestic opponents and international human rights organizations harshly denounced it.

The court determined that “there are substantial grounds for believing that the appellants’ removal to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment,” referring to the possibility that asylum seekers may be deported to their home country and subjected to persecution there.

Although no migrants have been deployed yet, Rwanda was given an initial allocation of £140 million ($174 million) last year to receive migrants who traveled the 4,000 miles. The decision on Wednesday raised doubts about it.

The goal of this year’s Illegal Migration Act, which was passed into law, is to stop individuals who enter the country illegally from requesting refuge. Authorities are required by law to detain and deport individuals to either their place of birth, if that is feasible, or to a “safe third country,” such as Rwanda, where their asylum requests may be handled. Asylum seekers who were relocated would never be allowed back into Britain.

The Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court’s Lord Reed cited important data from the UNHCR, the organization that handles refugees, demonstrating the futility of a comparable deportation deal between Rwanda and Israel.

The five judges on the Supreme Court stated that there was “a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda would be returned to their home countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum.”

The court’s decision on Wednesday noted that the regulation had previously been upheld by a lower court. “However, the way in which the Home Secretary had implemented the policy in the claimants’ individual cases was procedurally flawed,” added the statement.

The strategy in question was declared illegal because to the United Kingdom’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights, a charter that requires states to guarantee that individuals are not subjected to torture or other forms of abuse.

Sunak’s Disappointment

In response to the verdict, Sunak claimed that there was a “plan B” and that the administration would think about its next course of action, notwithstanding Braverman’s objections.

“We have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities, and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats,” he said, adding that while this was not the conclusion they had hoped for.

Crucially, the notion of sending undocumented migrants to a safe third nation for processing is legitimate, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the High Court preceding it.

At a press conference on Wednesday night, Sunak went one step further and declared that his government will present “emergency legislation” that would declare Rwanda a secure nation and “end the merry-go-round” of legal disputes. “I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights,” he continued.

Sunak did not specify the contents of his proposed law. Legislators may still oppose it, and legal challenges to the policies and deportation orders themselves may arise. Sonia Lenegan, an immigration attorney, stated, “I still find it hard to believe that anybody is flying to Rwanda.”

The decision on Wednesday sparked an intense debate inside Sunak’s Conservative Party on whether or not Britain should completely exit the European Convention on Human Rights, which it helped create and was among the first to ratify. It was a “dark day for the British people,” according to Conservative Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson, who advised the government to “just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda.”

The Consequences

Lawmaker Yvette Cooper of the opposition Labour Party stated on X, formerly Twitter, that the Court “exposed complete failure of Sunak’s flagship policy & his judgement.” The Prime Minister was aware of issues with the initiative, but he nevertheless granted Rwanda £140 million, made it the focal point of his strategy, and lacked a proper plan to pursue criminal organizations in order to halt boat crossings.

“Our partnership with Rwanda, while bold and ambitious, is just one part of a vehicle of measures to stop the boats and tackle illegal migration,” stated James Cleverly, the home secretary. However, it is evident that there is interest in this idea.

As illegal migration rises throughout Europe, governments there are emulating our approach: Austria, Germany, Italy, and Rwanda are all investigating approaches like to our collaboration with Rwanda.

Official statistics show that over 20,000 people have crossed this year, including 800 on a single day. Compared to 2022, when more than 45,000 traveled, this is still fewer. However, certain local authorities in the United Kingdom are still under pressure from the influx, forcing some migrants into hotels and student housing during the country’s housing crisis.