ASYLUM-SEEKERS sent to Rwanda face a “real risk” of being deported back to nations where they face persecution and torture, the United Nations’ refugee agency has warned in a rare intervention in the High Court. 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said that it wanted to make an “unequivocal warning” against Tory plans to send refugees on a one-way ticket to the African nation. 

The policy is being challenged in the High Court by several asylum-seekers and campaign groups who argue that the plans are unlawful. 

Laura Dubinsky QC, representing the UNHCR, told judges that Rwanda is not a safe option and claimed that the Home Office had failed to properly investigate the situation in the east African nation. 

Ms Dubinsky said the UNHCR had documented recent cases where people trying to claim asylum in Rwanda have been refused and deported back to a country where they would be at risk of torture and ill-treatment. 

This practice is known as refoulement and is against international law. 

“To avoid any doubt, the UNHCR does make an unequivocal warning in this case,” Ms Dubinsky said. 

“The courts and lawyers have drawn a distinction between cases where the UNHCR is more reticent and doesn’t think that the threshold has been crossed where it needs to call for an embargo. 

“It is calling for an embargo here because [the policy] will lead to a real risk of refoulement and other breaches of the convention.”

She also hit back at claims made in written submissions by Home Office lawyers that evidence provided by UNHCR on Rwanda’s poor human rights record was “anecdotal evidence.” 

The lawyer said that the UNHCR’s long-term presence in Rwanda, where it has 332 staff, and the fact it manages various asylum reception centres and has intervened in alleged cases of refoulement, its views and concerns should be given particular weight.

“So it is quite wrong to say, look, this is anecdotal,” she said. 

Lawyers representing the campaigners argued that former home secretary Priti Patel breached her legal obligation to thoroughly investigate whether Rwanda was a safe third country for asylum. 

They argued that the assessment determining Rwanda to be safe was not impartial nor independently reviewed, and omitted “key criticisms” of the country’s asylum system, and human rights record. 

The High Court case continues.