‘One in, one out’ under threat?

[TeenagersAngst]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dqe2443l1o.amp

I would have thought that this kind of thing would have been fleshed out when the scheme was being created and they would only be selecting people who were unlikely to be successful in gaining asylum?

What’s going on?

He hasn't "won a block" in the sense most people will understand it. He has interim relief which means that his removal has been delayed for a very short period of time. The reason for that, according to the article, is that he says he has evidence that he should be exempt from the scheme. If he fails to produce it, or (more likely) he produces it and the Home Office say it's not good enough, then he is back to square one.

The govt will have been anticipating these types of challenges and their arguments will have been readied in advance.

I don't know why they would choose an Eritrean national to guinea pig it, since Eritrea is an absolutely appalling pit of human rights abuse and most applicants are successful. Either there was no discretion as to nationality applied, which would make sense, or it is an active choice by the govt in order to dispel challenges based on risk of refoulement.

I’ve also seen reports that another (second) flight has cancelled. It’s frustrating that this is already running into hurdles.

More money down the drain. The fact successive governments can't get rid of people entering here illegally just boggles the mind.

AFAIK and for info it's not a case of actual flights being cancelled - the deportees (and possibly escorts) have seats booked on normal commercial flights (in the case of the first individual it was with Air France), that's been a fairly normal process for the handling of most deportees over the years.

Hopefully at worse in the case of a failed deportation HMG simply ends up paying for seats not used, not the bill for the whole flight.

I am expecting France to send us migrants and our courts will prevent anybody being sent the other way.

Yet another Starmer fuck up.

It’s all about the person being allowed some time to produce evidence. It’s not stopping all returns.

I heard somewhere on the news yesterday that the Home Office defence was that it was reasonable for the Eritrean man to have sought asylum in France rather than the UK.

Surely that argument can be applied to anyone coming from France???

Yes, that’s right, bad wording on my part. Thanks for clarifying.

The individual said that his human rights would be breached in France because asylum seekers get no support there, and also that he was a victim of trafficking and needed more time to get evidence of that.

The HO said his human rights would be perfectly fine in France, and if he was a victim of trafficking he could submit his documents to the NRM (the trafficking assessment system) from France once removed.

Unfortunately during the hearing itself, the HO barrister received an email from the NRM saying "actually we can't accept documents from abroad."

At that point, they had to accept that their original claim that he could submit from abroad was bound to fail.

The Times reports that the judge dismissed the human rights argument. He's granted interim relief so that the applicant can get his evidence of trafficking and submit it in-country.

Another empty publicity fanfare from Labour. Headline grabbing but no substance because they do not care about us.

The individual said that his human rights would be breached in France because asylum seekers get no support there

Obviously the devil might be in the detail/terminology here.

There is certainly some support in places for what I'd best term new arrivals in France who haven't regularised their status.

We're at a very interesting point if UK judges are accepting claims that human rights are being breached in France.

Although I note from @WiggyPig that the judge dismissed this argument.

Whatever the public messaging this was foreseen. Whenever a new regime is introduced for Immigration, and many other areas of policy people affected will exercise their right to challenge.

See Rwanda.

Although the papers, or at least Times Radio, were saying the guy has 'won' his challenge he has not. The court, or maybe the First-tier Tribunal, have suspended his removal for 14 days so lawyers can get their ducks in a row with arguments.

As above there's no finding regarding anything related to rights in France and I doubt anybody thinks such an argument would succeed.

@Bromptotoo it's a shame lawyers are even putting that forward as an argument - it starts to seriously undermine the work they do.

I vigorously disagree with the assertion about lawyers.

The same was said about Rwanda but the 'unsafe' argument succeed before the highest court in the land.

Everybody is entitled to have their arguments assessed by a court.

In this case I suspect the arguments have little merit and chummy will be on a plane soon.

The one on one out system doesn't mean that those picked for removal no longer have access to the legal representation and rules that apply to any asylum application.
Clearly the HO stuffed up on this one and booked him a flight before the legal channels for someone trafficked had been exhausted.

I'm another who finds it odd that Eritreans have been selected. Why not applicants from reasonably stable countries?

100% this.

The argument about human rights was "real risk of destitution." The Times reported that

"The judge appeared to dismiss the argument that his human rights would be breached if returned to France. He highlighted a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in 2020 that asylum seekers’ human rights were not breached in France because they had to live in a tent in a car park for several months."

The devil is undoubtedly in the detail - what might amount to inhuman and degrading treatment for a person who is missing a leg, living with severe mental health problems and who has a history of torture including being made to be outside in boiling sun or freezing overnight temperatures, might not for someone who is otherwise in robust health.

Eritreans are a pretty large part of the small boat cohort.

I think one in/one out is focussed on swapping those with (eg) no family in UK for those with clear links to UK.

I thought it was about choosing candidates who were the least likely to qualify for asylum in the UK. That goes beyond the right to a family life?

Not on top of detail at that level.

I think Eritrean's issue is around forced labour/modern slavery.

What made it even more frustrating was that it took them nearly a full year to implement, and they should have closed the legal loopholes before it even came into force. This government seems to lack both urgency and common sense, with a faintly far-right tilt to boot.

What legal loopholes are there?

The guy says he was trafficked and/or a victim of modern slavery. If that is the case it will, rightly, affect how his claim is assessed.

He/his lawyers have been given 14 days to get there arguments together in support of that.

Let's see what happens next.

He's claiming he was trafficked in Libya. Why is that our problem? Did he pay to be trafficked across the Sahara?

That's for the court of First-tier Tribunal to decide.

Theresa May was very keen, rightly, to legislate for trafficking and modern slavery. The law may cover people who were trafficked at any time; I don't know the detail.

As I said a court or tribunal will hear what's it's about and either chummy stays or he's on a plane to France.

If HMG don't like the way law on trafficking is applied they have the power to change it.

On that we're in agreement. Rather than wasting millions in legal fees, Labour should use their huge majority to change the law and stop all this bullshit.