Interior Ministry lawyers, who will respond later, are expected to argue that plans to deport migrants to Rwanda are “pursuing a significant public interest.”
The evictions are said to be aimed at deterring people from making dangerous small boat trips to the UK to seek asylum.
They say their deportation is lawful according to rules that consider asylum inadmissible if they have made dangerous and unnecessary trips from a safe third country like France.
Some 130 migrants entering the UK are currently being held ready for flights as of next Tuesday, although at least 90 have individually lodged legal appeals for their expulsion.
Migrants to be relocated to Rwanda are likely to be released into the community and could be labeled for fear of trying to flee if the government loses the battle of court orders on Friday.
“Serious concerns about access to fair proceedings”
The UNHCR document, which was presented to the court, stated that it was “seriously concerned that asylum seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda did not have access to fair and efficient procedures for determining refugee status.” with the consequent risks of return “.
Return is the legal term for the forced return of refugees to a country where they may be persecuted.
He warned that the asylum system in Rwanda where migrants are expected to seek refuge is “nascent”, as it has largely dealt with refugees from neighboring countries such as Burundi.
“According to the UNHCR assessment, there is a serious risk that the burden of processing asylum applications from newcomers to the United Kingdom could further exceed the capacity of Rwanda’s national asylum system, thus undermining the its ability to provide protection to all asylum seekers, “he said.
UNHCR concluded: “The agreement between the United Kingdom and Rwanda does not meet the required standards regarding the legality and adequacy of bilateral or multilateral transfers of asylum seekers.
“This agreement, which, among other concerns, seeks to change the responsibility and does not have the necessary guarantees, is incompatible with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention.
“According to UNHCR, the agreement between the United Kingdom and Rwanda cannot be aligned with international legal obligations through minor adjustments.
“The serious concerns raised in this analysis require urgent and appropriate consideration by the governments of the United Kingdom and Rwanda in accordance with their obligations under established and binding rules of international refugee law.”