UK Home Office loses bid to challenge High Court ruling blocking Eritrean deportation under 'one-in, one-out' scheme

LONDON — The Home Office has been refused permission to appeal a High Court ruling that temporarily blocked the deportation of an Eritrean migrant to France under Britain's 'one-in, one-out' scheme. The Court of Appeal's decision marks another setback for ministers as the policy struggles to deliver removals even as small-boat crossings remain at record levels. So far this year, more than 32,000 people have crossed the Channel, and only three people have been returned under the deal.

Officials had planned to deport the Eritrean man to France at 9 a.m. on Sept. 17, but Mr. Justice Sheldon granted interim relief, giving him 14 days to make representations to support his claim that he is a victim of modern slavery. In written submissions, Home Office counsel argued that the judge erred in determining that interim relief was appropriate. Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Lewis, and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing refused to grant permission to appeal, with detailed reasons to follow at a later date. The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had previously expressed frustration at migrants potentially invoking modern slavery claims on the eve of removals.

Migrants who made landfall at Dover over the weekend underscored the ongoing strain on processing systems amid the government’s deterrence drive. The pilot scheme with France, agreed in July, is meant to remove asylum seekers to France under the treaty while Britain accepts a migrant with a strong claim. By Friday, the scheme had resulted in two removals of Eritrean men, and a third asylum seeker—a man from Iran—was returned on a flight from Heathrow to Paris on Friday, according to authorities.

Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy described the deal as an "immediate deterrent" and a milestone, saying the government hoped to see the number of deportations grow in the coming months and years as more small boats begin crossing in the early hours of Friday. But analysts and opposition figures warned that the day’s 1,072 arrivals showed the policy had not yet delivered a deterrent effect, tempering any celebration from ministers.

Critics, including Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, seized on the figures to argue the policy has had little impact. He called the returns "pathetic" and said boasting about the scheme was "absurd" while many migrants continue to arrive. Home Office sources, however, sought to downplay the criticisms, noting that the removals under the scheme are forcible and that the policy differs from the Rwanda plan pursued by a previous government.

The financial side of the program remains a major point of contention. Officials project that housing, food, healthcare, legal aid, education, and other benefits for asylum seekers could cost British taxpayers as much as £43 million in a single year. Local councils also contribute funding, with roughly £1,200 per asylum seeker allocated to cover incidental expenditures. Critics have pointed to additional costs tied to the voluntary departure scheme, under which failed asylum seekers can be paid up to £3,000 to leave Britain. Between 2021 and 2024, 13,637 migrants took advantage of this program, at a reported cost of about £40.9 million.

In 2024, the Home Office noted that the average time to reach a decision on an initial asylum application was about 413 days, leaving many new claimants dependent on state support for more than a year after arrival. The ongoing fiscal and operational pressures surrounding asylum policy are likely to shape debates in Parliament as the government defends its approach to deterrence and returns while parallel uncertainties about legal challenges persist.