The court of appeal has deemed the Braverman plan, which involves sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing their claims, to be unlawful. Rishi Sunak, however, announced that the government would seek a supreme court appeal, arguing that Rwanda is a safe country and that the court had acknowledged this fact. The ruling comes after a four-day hearing in April, challenging a high court decision from last December that deemed it lawful to send certain asylum seekers, including those arriving on small boats, to Rwanda for claim processing instead of considering their applications in the UK.

The court concluded that due to deficiencies in Rwanda's asylum system, there is a real risk that individuals sent there would be returned to their home countries, where they may face persecution or inhumane treatment, despite having valid claims for asylum. The judges determined that Rwanda does not qualify as a "safe third country," even though the Rwandan government had provided assurances in good faith.

Rishi Sunak expressed disagreement with the court's conclusions, emphasising that the Rwandan government has given sufficient assurances to prevent wrongful returns of asylum seekers. He reiterated the government's position of asserting control over who enters the country, stating that criminal gangs should not dictate immigration policies.

The illegal migration bill, currently under consideration in parliament, stipulates that asylum seekers arriving through "irregular means" could be forcibly removed to Rwanda. However, the Labour Party argued that the government's small boat crossing policy is now falling apart, with Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, criticising the Rwanda scheme as unworkable, unethical, and excessively costly.

The court of appeal judges, including Lord Burnett, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill, ruled by a majority that the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful, although Lord Burnett disagreed with the other two judges.

The appeal against the ruling received support from various entities, including the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), lawyers, charities, and a group of asylum seekers. The UNHCR presented evidence of human rights abuses towards refugees in Rwanda, such as forced removal to risky countries, expulsions, and arbitrary detention. The agency argued that the Home Office would be unable to guarantee the safety of deported asylum seekers in Rwanda. On the other hand, counsel for the home secretary, Sir James Eadie KC, expressed confidence in the Rwandan government's commitment to the undertakings outlined in a memorandum of understanding between the two countries.

The case involved ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan, and Albania who arrived in the UK through irregular means, including small boat crossings. The central issue before the court was whether Rwanda could provide reliable outcomes for asylum claims and whether there was a risk of forcibly returning asylum seekers to their home countries, even if they had strong claims for asylum. The judges unanimously concluded that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Other grounds of appeal were rejected by the judges.

A spokesperson for the Rwandan government expressed disagreement with the ruling, asserting that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers and refugees. Rwanda, they claimed, has received recognition from the UNHCR and other international institutions for its exemplary treatment of refugees. The government of Rwanda remains committed to the partnership and aims to welcome and support migrants for them to build new lives in the country.

Despite both the UK and Rwandan governments citing the UNHCR's endorsement of Rwanda as a safe haven for refugees, the agency strongly opposes the scheme. The UNHCR has only endorsed Rwanda as a temporary transit destination for refugees rescued from torture and trafficking in Libya, before moving them to a safe third country for resettlement.