The British High Court on Monday backed the government's plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, while the United Nations considered the move a catastrophic precedent.
Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have dismissed last-minute petitions against the British government's controversial plan to deport illegally arrived migrants to Rwanda, on the eve of the first planned flights.
Despite criticism from human rights advocates, the United Nations, the Anglican Church and even the British royal family, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government appears determined to prevent illegal crossings of the Channel, which has been on the rise despite repeated promises since Brexit.
"This appeal has been dismissed", which was brought against Johnson's Conservative government project aimed at halting illegal crossings of the Channel Channel, a judge at the London Court of Appeal said.
Judge Rabindur Singh confirmed the decision issued by the Court of First Instance following an emergency appeal filed by refugee associations.
Subsequently, the High Court in London rejected an appeal to stop the implementation of the refugee deportation scheme.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, condemned the United Kingdom's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, saying it was "all wrong" and set a "disastrous" precedent.
"We think it's all wrong... for many reasons," he told reporters.
Since the beginning of this year, more than 10,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the Channel to reach the British coast on small boats, a significant increase compared to previous years, which constituted a record.
The British Home Office believes that its plan is important to prevent the flow of refugees in this way and that it is in the public interest and should not be obstructed.
"Criminal groups that put lives at risk in the Channel must understand that their economic model will collapse under this government," Boris Johnson said Monday in radio statements.