FACTBOX-Supreme Court considers UK plan to send migrants to Rwanda

The key issue for the Supreme Court is whether Rwanda is a safe country, as the government says, or whether, as the asylum seekers' lawyers argue, migrants are at risk of being sent back to their home countries in breach of their human rights. Returning asylum seekers to their home countries, known as "refoulement", is unlawful under international law.

Britain's appeal against a ruling that its controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful began at the United Kingdom's Supreme Court on Monday after a 16-month legal battle.

Here is what has happened in the case so far and what is likely to happen next: WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR?

The first challenges to the policy were heard in June 2022, when London's High Court refused to stop some asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda pending their legal challenge. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court also declined attempts to block the deportations, before the European Court of Human Rights issued a last-minute injunction blocking their removal.

No one has yet been sent to Rwanda, more than 4,000 miles (6,400 km) away, while the case makes its way through the courts. The High Court ruled the policy was lawful in December but that ruling was overturned in June, setting up a Supreme Court battle at which Britain will try to salvage the Rwanda plan - one of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's key policies.

WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT BE ASKED TO DECIDE? The key issue for the Supreme Court is whether Rwanda is a safe country, as the government says, or whether, as the asylum seekers' lawyers argue, migrants are at risk of being sent back to their home countries in breach of their human rights.

Returning asylum seekers to their home countries, known as "refoulement", is unlawful under international law. Britain argues there is no real risk of refoulement because of specific terms and assurances in its deal with Rwanda, meaning the policy is lawful.

The asylum seekers facing deportation to Rwanda are also bringing an appeal, arguing that conditions in Rwanda would breach their human rights even without refoulement. WHAT DOES THE GOVERNMENT SAY?

James Eadie, a lawyer representing the government, said Britain's Rwanda policy comes from the "serious and pressing need" to deter people crossing the Channel in small boats. Britain argues that the monitoring arrangements in place in Rwanda and the Rwandan government's assurances that asylum seekers will not be sent to their home countries should be taken at face value by the court.

"The government's assessment is that Rwanda will abide by the detailed set of assurances made in good faith," Eadie said in court filings. He also said that financial and other incentives for Rwanda to abide by the agreement will ensure asylum seekers are treated fairly.

WHAT DO THE POLICY'S OPPONENTS SAY? Lawyers representing eight of the asylum seekers involved in the case argue the government's position overlooks the past unlawful treatment of migrants in Rwanda.

They say asylum seekers have repeatedly suffered breaches of their human rights, including under a similar deal with Israel, and that Rwanda has a "reputation for repression of dissent". Incentives for Rwanda did not prevent breaches of the Israel-Rwanda deal, nor has the previous suspension of British aid on human rights grounds changed things, they argue.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), which has intervened in the appeal, also said there is a real risk of asylum seekers being returned to their home countries. "The assurances and commitments given ... do not suffice to establish an accessible, reliable or fair asylum system in Rwanda," the UNCHR said in court documents.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)