Some of the key findings by the court of appeal \u2013 and what they mean<\/p>
Suella Braverman<\/a>\u2019s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda<\/a> suffered a fresh blow on Thursday after the court of appeal ruled<\/a> by a majority of two to one that it was unlawful. Here are some of the key findings by the court of appeal justices and what they mean.<\/p> \u201cThere are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the asylum claims of RIs [relocated individuals] may be wrongly refused. On the face of it, it would appear to follow that there was a real risk of them being refouled. Where an asylum<\/em> seeker\u2019s claim is rejected the country in question will typically require them to leave the country (in the absence of any other basis on which they might claim residence), and since they will have been found to be at no risk in their country of origin, there is no reason why they should not be returned there; and even if they are in the first instance returned to some other country that does not exclude the possibility of indirect refoulement.\u201d<\/em><\/p> Continue reading...<\/a>\n