Home Office will decide asylum claims of thousands stuck in Rwanda scheme limbo

Thousands of asylum seekers left in limbo for more than two years as they awaited a decision on the Rwanda scheme will now have their cases decided in the UK.

The decision, revealed during a high court challenge on Friday, is a sharp shift in position from the previous government, which had passed various laws declaring that the claims of those who arrived after January 2022 were “inadmissible” – and so could not be processed in the UK.

But on Friday, the court heard how the new home secretary had pledged to process the claims of those threatened with removal under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) in Britain. Keir Starmer scrapped the Rwanda scheme upon entering Downing Street.

A preliminary hearing in London had already been scheduled, however, in order to hear the progress of the claims of two asylum seekers who had claimed the Home Office had acted unlawfully by delaying its decision over their applications.

Alex Goodman KC, who represents one of the asylum seekers, then told the court the Home Office had revealed on Thursday “everybody in the MEDP cohort would now be admitted to the asylum system”, and their asylum claims would be “dealt with as a priority”.

The backlog of asylum claims had created conditions in which tens of thousands of migrants had been left in temporary accommodation such as hotels.

Weeks after the Rwanda deal was signed in April 2022, the Home Office began issuing notices of intent to those who had arrived in the UK via “dangerous routes”, where there was evidence they had a connection with a safe third country such as France.

One of the asylum seekers challenging the Home Office is an Eritrean man who endured horrific torture and persecution in his home country when he tried to evade enforced military conscription and on his journey to the UK.

His argument was that the Home Office’s decision to “pause” cases like his frustrated the objectives of the Rwanda legislation, and that the government’s delay in determining whether or not an asylum claim is inadmissible was unlawful.

Goodman previously told the court that the “pause” policy applied to “many thousands” of claims.

The judge in today’s case, Mrs Justice Collins Rice, said there had been a lot of activity in the last few days between lawyers for asylum seekers and the government. About 90,000 people are thought to be in the backlog of cases initially earmarked for Rwanda and currently left in limbo in the UK.

The Labour government is reportedly planning to clear the asylum backlog of 90,000 – the majority of whom have come from conflict zones such as Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan.

Ben Nelson, a lawyer at Duncan Lewis solicitors representing the Eritrean asylum seeker, said: “Today’s concession is not only welcome news to our clients but also to the wider cohort of vulnerable asylum seekers who have been held in limbo for over two years with the threat of removal to Rwanda perpetually hanging over their heads.

“The decision from the new home secretary will allow our clients to move on with their lives.”

The Home Office has been approached for comment.

Related: Keir Starmer says he is open to processing asylum seekers offshore

The Conservative government had earlier pledged a “regular rhythm” of flights, beginning on 24 July. But Starmer scrapped the plan before anybody was deported involuntarily, with the Labour leader describing the MEDP as “dead and buried before it started”.

Starmer also said this week he is open to the idea of offshore processing , a policy that has proven controversial when used by countries such as Australia to deter asylum seekers from arriving. So far this year, more than 10,000 have crossed the English Channel in small boats, with 317 people arriving on Thursday in six boats.

Speaking after a discussion on illegal migration with fellow European leaders at Blenheim Palace on Thursday, Starmer said: “I’m a practical person. I’m a pragmatist. And I’ve always said we’ll look at what works and where cases can be processed closer to origin, then that is something which of course ought to be looked at.”