Published: 5th June 2024 PLP is representing a Sudanese torture survivor (‘SM’) in a judicial review against the Home Office over plans to potentially remove him to Rwanda. At an interim High Court hearing this week, the date of 9-12 July was set for the hearing to take place. This is currently the main test case against the Government’s Rwanda policy. As reported by the BBC, the Home Office told the court at the hearing this week that no flights will leave Rwanda until 24 July at the earliest. This week’s hearing was linked to a claim brought by Asylum Aid which has now been stayed pending the outcome of SM’s claim. SM claimed asylum in the UK over two years ago. He issued a judicial review claim against the Home Office following receipt of a ‘notice of intent’ that his asylum claim may be treated as inadmissible and that he may be removed to Rwanda. SM is seeking an order from the court for the Home Office to admit his asylum claim and for it to be considered in the UK. He is also seeking an order to quash Home Office guidance which directs officials not to consider the risk of ‘onward removal’ to another country from Rwanda. If the court decides that the Home Office guidance is lawful and in line with relevant provisions of the Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Act 2024, SM will ask the court to make a declaration that parts of the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 are incompatible with the ECHR. Mr Justice Chamberlain suggested that other cases raising similar issues may wish to apply to join SM’s claim. Rakesh Singh, Solicitor at Public Law Project said: “My client is a Sudanese torture survivor who has been in the UK since May 2022 when he claimed asylum. “Despite the delay of nearly two years during which nothing was done by the Home Office to progress his claim, he was detained by the Home Office at the beginning of May 2024. He was then served with a ‘notice of intent’ which means the Home Office is considering not assessing his asylum claim in the UK and that he may be removed to Rwanda for his claim to be dealt with there. “My client is challenging the delay in his case as well as the failure to give him a fair opportunity to respond to the notice of intent. “Part of my client’s challenge may include asking the court to declare that parts of the Safety of Rwanda Act are incompatible with the ECHR. “Parliament passed the Act in such a way as to deliberately allow individuals to seek such a declaration of incompatibility and the Government has acknowledged this is the case.” The grounds of the case are: The Home Office has failed to follow its own policy and immigration rules and has breached SM’s human rights by: refusing to admit his asylum claim for substantive consideration in the UK, and refusing a meaningful extension of time to make representations as to why SM’s claim should be admitted for substantive consideration in the UK The Home Office’s guidance on section 4(2) of the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 prevents it from considering the risk of SM being removed from Rwanda to another country – this guidance is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the Act. If the Court decides that the Home Office has interpreted the Act correctly, PLP will ask the court to make a declaration that the parts of the Act which prevent the Home Office and Court from considering the risk of onward removal from Rwanda are incompatible with the ECHR.