UK: What will the Rwanda Act mean for Afghan asylum seekers?

As the Safety of Rwanda bill overcame its final hurdle in the British parliament and was voted to proceed to royal assent and thus become law, fear was reportedly felt by some members of the Afghan migrant community in the UK.

According to data published in October 2023 by the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, around 13,000 Afghan nationals were awaiting a Home Office decision on their asylum applications in Britain as of June 30, 2023. It is not clear how many, if any, of these people could be sent to Rwanda to have their claims processed, but some members of the community fear that fate while a decision is pending.

On July 20 last year the Illegal Migration Act came into force, making the asylum claims of anyone arriving in the UK without documents inadmissible. Since then, more than 21,000 people have arrived "illegally" by boat in the UK, according to government figures.

Many of these people, whether or not they are Afghans, are in a kind of legal limbo: they also face the prospect of being sent to Rwanda, as they are unable to apply for asylum and could be eligible to be deported to the African country.

Government schemes and asylum

There are two British government schemes designed to provide relocation and assistance to Afghans who qualify – ARAP and ARAS. Those who worked for or with the UK government in Afghanistan in "exposed or meaningful roles" before the return of the Taliban to power are eligible for the schemes. But there are some Afghan nationals who have either not been able to qualify for those schemes or did not even begin to apply for them, and instead traveled to Britain via boats across the Channel.

According to Migration Observatory data published in October 2023, an estimated 21,500 Afghans had received settlement in the UK under ARAP and ARAS. About 70 percent of those who received protection status via the schemes were flown out during the initial evacuation of Kabul.

Also read: Accommodation troubles continue for Afghan refugees in the UK

But the Migration Observatory found that between January 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023, three times as many Afghans claimed asylum as were resettled through these schemes in the UK.

After August 2021, when the Taliban took back control of Afghanistan, the number of Afghans crossing the Channel by boat "rose substantially," noted the Migration Observatory. In the first half of 2023, Afghans became the most common nationality arriving in the UK by boat.

In the year ending March 31, 2023, 92 percent of Afghans arriving by boat applied for asylum. Two percent of them had received an initial decision by that time and 97 percent had been granted refugee status or another type of leave to remain.

Slipping through the cracks

Despite the schemes and the high previous grant rate for Afghans seeking asylum, some who were previously recognized for protection have slipped through the cracks.

The Labour MP Stella Creasy has repeatedly raised just such a case of one of her constituents, both in parliament and the media. On Monday in parliament, she again referred to the story of the man, who has British citizenship and served with the British armed forces for 15 years:

"He and his family were called forward to the Baron hotel [in Afghanistan when the Taliban took power and the British and other foreign powers were offering airlifts to those who qualified] but could not get there because of an explosion." Since then, the family has "been through hell," Creasy said.

Although the man reached Britain, his wife and family have been unable to join him in the UK. He is not eligible to apply for ARAP because he is now a British citizen. Creasy said that the government had written to her suggesting the man's children could apply for the ARAP scheme, but because they are under ten years old "they will probably not qualify."

"[The] Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is in tatters and will not accept them, as the government are now trying to say that they were invited, rather than instructed, to go to the Baron hotel," Creasy said.

Also read: Hila's tale, 'if no one wants me, then I want myself'

Between a rock and a hard place

Many report being caught in similar predicaments, unable to apply for schemes because they are no longer in Afghanistan, or disqualified from claiming asylum because they decided to try and join their family members by traveling independently to Britain, and thus entering irregularly.

Between January 2018 and June 2023, according to British government data, the number of Afghan citizens to have made the Channel crossing totals 12,599.

Also read: UK government proposes moving Afghan refugees out of hotels

Flights to Rwanda are not due to start until July this year, the British government confirmed on Monday. However, once they do start, it hopes to schedule a "drumbeat" of flights, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told a press conference on Monday, both to act as a deterrent to those who still hope to make the crossing and to try to shift as many as 52,000 asylum seekers the government says could be eligible to be sent to Rwanda.

InfoMigrants asked the Home Office (Interior Ministry) to confirm how many of that number are Afghan citizens and who might be flown to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed. The Home Office declined to provide further information by phone and has yet to provide a written reply.

'Deeply fearful'

One former military interpreter, who wanted to remain anonymous, spoke to the Abu Dhabi-financed National News. He told the paper that many friends of his who had paid smugglers to leave Afghanistan were now "deeply fearful" of being sent to Rwanda. He described them as having "no hope for the future" because of their fears of being included in a future Rwanda deportation flight.

The military interpreter, who the National says worked for special forces between 2006 and 2014, including the SAS, said many of his friends had paid up to 15,000 dollars (around 14,000 euros) to leave Afghanistan as economic migrants. It was not clear whether any of these people had worked for the British military before leaving.

Also read: Are Afghans really welcome in the UK?

The interpreter also said that Afghans felt their rights would not be as strongly protected in Rwanda as they might be in the UK. He said those who had paid to leave Afghanistan were fleeing the oppressive rule of the Taliban and hoped to establish a "new life" with their families in the UK.

Afghan amendment dropped along with all the others

The Rwanda bill passed after a lengthy process of debate between the upper and lower houses of parliament.

One of the sticking points during the process was a proposed amendment by the House of Lords concerning additional protection for Afghan migrants arriving in Britain without papers rather than via official resettlement programs.

Also read: UK's policy of 'warm welcome' towards Afghans challenged in court

The government ultimately rejected the amendment relating to Afghan citizens, saying that there were already safe and legal routes for Afghan citizens to reach the UK and no one needed to travel to the UK by boat across the Channel.

The Home Secretary stated in a video on social media that the "Act will prevent people from abusing the law by using false human rights claims to block removals."

The Safety of Rwanda Bill has just passed in Parliament.

This is what it means 👇 pic.twitter.com/Nq3O9qKVus

— James Cleverly🇬🇧 (@JamesCleverly) April 22, 2024

Bill branded a 'sham' by opposition

Michael Tomlinson, the UK's minister responsible for countering "illegal migration", told parliament on Monday that the government was not planning to remove to Rwanda those "who receive a positive eligibility decision as a result of the review." He promised that the government did not intend to let combat veterans down.

But opposition MP Stephen Kinnock called the bill a "sham" and said the government’s plan was "to get a few symbolic flights off the ground ahead of a general election, regardless of the wider impact." Kinnock added that it was "tokenism and posturing of the worst sort."

Another Labour MP, Florence Eshalomi, said any deportations to Rwanda would account for just one percent of those crossing the Channel and added that if true, the new law could be regarded as a "gimmick."

The Tories failing Rwanda scheme is immoral, unworkable and expensive.

Meanwhile, thousands of asylum seekers are left in permanent limbo by our broken system.

I am proud to stand with my Vauxhall constituents against this Bill. pic.twitter.com/SmspIG9bY8

— Florence Eshalomi MP (@FloEshalomi) April 22, 2024