Court of Appeal rules against Government’s Rwanda policy

In a split decision relating to 10 asylum-seekers, the Court of Appeal allowed the claimants’ appeals in the Rwanda case. The essential basis for the decision is that the evidence does not show that Rwanda is a safe third country for asylum-seekers.

The claimants’ other generic arguments were rejected. A summary provided by the court can be found here.

In relation to arguments based on data protection failures, which were the primary focus in SAA’s case (represented by Mr Manjit S. Gill KC, Ramby be Mello and Tony Muman), the court decided that any such failures did not in themselves invalidate removal decisions.