"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". Or in this case, a single flight.
human rights lawyers have blocked 1st plane of asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
Sponsored Links
A judicial review has been mentioned now ................................................
Transam is looking up his backside again.
You spend yer entire life looking up yer back side
And talking out of it
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,394
- Reaction score
- 603
- Country
The judge who allowed the Rwanda flight specifically permitted an appeal against his decision. . He may have known that the info before him was wrong, but he didn't have proof. ie word from UNHCR.
The period given to the fugees in the UK to appeal (about 5 days) will be deemed too short, and a major claimed aim - that of deterrence - hasn't been seen shown to be working since the Rwanda policy was announced.
Some of those arriving have relatives here, so have a strong case to stay.
Looks to me highly unllikely that a routine forwarding to Rwanda will happen.
The carriers will shortly be handing out names of people who can be claimed as relatves in the UK. They could be checked, but that would slow everything down again.
The period given to the fugees in the UK to appeal (about 5 days) will be deemed too short, and a major claimed aim - that of deterrence - hasn't been seen shown to be working since the Rwanda policy was announced.
Some of those arriving have relatives here, so have a strong case to stay.
Looks to me highly unllikely that a routine forwarding to Rwanda will happen.
The carriers will shortly be handing out names of people who can be claimed as relatves in the UK. They could be checked, but that would slow everything down again.
Sponsored Links
This was an emergency injunction. In essence it would have told the government to stop doing anything until they'd had the full court hearing, at which point they might be allowed to start again.
But it failed, so the government can continue as they planned until the court case, where they might be blocked or might be allowed to continue.
No the high court has not upheld the govts policy.
D
Deleted member 18243
It doesn't.
On 14 April 2022, the Prime Minister announced that anyone entering the UK illegally as well as those who have arrived illegally since 1 January 2022 may be relocated to Rwanda for processing. Later that day, the SSHD noted that under the new Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) with Rwanda, those who have their asylum claim deemed as inadmissible in the UK may be relocated to Rwanda for processing under their asylum system
It is worth noting that the new provisions governing removal in the new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 do not come into force until 28 June.[3] The government is therefore currently relying on asylum law from the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 by defining Rwanda as a 'safe third country' (Sch 1, para 17 and Sch 2, para 4(4)).
www.phb.co.uk
It is worth noting that the new provisions governing removal in the new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 do not come into force until 28 June.[3] The government is therefore currently relying on asylum law from the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 by defining Rwanda as a 'safe third country' (Sch 1, para 17 and Sch 2, para 4(4)).
Urgent Judicial Review ahead of first flight removing asylum seekers to Rwanda | Payne Hicks Beach
Immigration expert Richard Milford provides a breakdown of the urgent Judicial Review held against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ahead of the first flight removing 130 asylum seekers to Rwanda, which is due to depart on 14 June 2022.
www.phb.co.uk
experts
The legal profession is drowning in so called experts
All peddeling there expert opinions that seem to differ from other experts opinions
Imo a lot of em need the scruff of the neck arriss of the trousers and a shoe up there back side as they exit
The door
The legal profession is drowning in so called experts
All peddeling there expert opinions that seem to differ from other experts opinions
Imo a lot of em need the scruff of the neck arriss of the trousers and a shoe up there back side as they exit
The door
That also applies to some on this forum. Hey, why can’t they get together and form the DIYNOT party - they have all the answers to any legal, moral and fiscal problem.experts
The legal profession is drowning in so called experts
All peddeling there expert opinions that seem to differ from other experts opinions
Imo a lot of em need the scruff of the neck arriss of the trousers and a shoe up there back side as they exit
The door
Something similar worked for Oz.
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 5,893
- Reaction score
- 1,085
- Country
Didn’t Michael Gove say “we have had enough of experts”?
That went well.
Generally experts are employed because of their knowledge of a topic.
That went well.
Generally experts are employed because of their knowledge of a topic.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
