UK deports Eritrean migrant under 'one-in, one-out' scheme after High Court bid denied

A migrant who arrived in the United Kingdom on a small boat and sought to block his removal under the government’s 'one-in, one-out' scheme was deported to France on Friday after a High Court bid to halt the removal was refused. The Eritrean man, who was not named in line with standard practice for asylum seekers, was told his removal would take place at about 6:15 a.m. local time, marking the latest case in a series of rapid removals under the policy.

The man claimed he was an alleged trafficking victim and his barristers sought interim relief to pause the removal while his case was reviewed. In London, however, Mr Justice Sheldon rejected the application, saying there was no serious issue to be tried and that the test for injunctive relief had not been met. The judge said that the evidence presented did not amount to a prima facie case that would justify delaying the deportation, effectively allowing the Home Office to proceed with the removal as planned.

The applicant stated that he fled Eritrea in 2019 because of forced conscription and subsequently lived in Ethiopia, South Sudan and Libya before crossing into France. He said he spent about a week in Paris and described himself as homeless and destitute, living in fear for his life. He then moved to Dunkirk, where he stayed in an encampment known as 'the jungle' for roughly three weeks and did not lodge an asylum claim in France. After reaching the UK on a small boat, he was detained by the UK Border Force on August 6 and informed that his asylum claim in the UK was inadmissible on August 9.

Image: Migrants image

The ruling comes in the wake of another Eritrean man who was able to secure a temporary block on his own removal earlier in the week, prompting the court to signal that there could be a serious issue to be tried in that case as well. In that earlier case, the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) — the process that identifies and assesses potential victims of slavery and human trafficking — concluded that the man had likely not been trafficked but provided him time to make further representations. The judge noted that there remained room for further investigation into the trafficking claim.

Following the Tuesday hearing, the Home Office revised its approach to reconsidering modern-slavery decisions. Under the updated policy, anyone being removed to a safe country who wishes to appeal an NRM decision will be unable to do so in the United Kingdom. Instead, they may pursue a legal challenge from another country, such as France. The modification signals the government’s intent to streamline removals while allowing some avenues for challenge outside the UK, a change that has implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.

The case illustrates the ongoing tension between fast-track removals and the protections afforded to individuals who allege trafficking or other serious abuses. While the Home Office argues that such measures are necessary to manage irregular migration and uphold the integrity of the asylum system, advocates for trafficking victims contend that due process and proper safeguards must be maintained when individuals assert vulnerability or exploitation.

As authorities continue to apply the 'one-in, one-out' policy and balance security interests with humanitarian considerations, Friday’s deportation underscores the procedural complexity involved in modern migration cases. The court’s decision to refuse interim relief leaves the removal in place, at least for the time being, while parallel legal proceedings or appeals, if any, proceed from other jurisdictions under the revised policy framework.

The broader trend in recent weeks has seen a number of Eritrean nationals facing expedited removals, with courts sometimes opening the door to limited review of trafficking claims but stopping short of halting removals entirely. The government maintains that it is operating within the bounds of the law and that the National Referral Mechanism remains the appropriate tool for identifying and assisting potential victims of trafficking. Critics, meanwhile, emphasize the need for careful consideration of individual circumstances and the potential for misclassification within the NRM process. Until rulings on related cases are final, the coming weeks are likely to see further rapid removals under the scheme, alongside ongoing legal challenges from individuals who assert trafficking vulnerabilities.

In summary, the Friday removal reinforces the government’s current posture on irregular migration and modern-slavery protections, while the evolving policy on appealing NRM decisions outside the UK adds a new dynamic to how such cases are litigated and resolved across borders. The World continues to watch how these developments affect the balance between border control, human rights protections, and the rights of individuals who seek asylum or relief from trafficking.