Lawyers: The United Nations has warned Britain that the plan to deport refugees to Rwanda is illegal.

About 31 people were said to be on their first flight to Rwanda on Tuesday.

Shortly before the trial began, it was reported that at least three people were absent from the plane.

Home Office lawyers told the court the project should not be halted due to legal challenges in the public interest, and urged the judge to dismiss the appeals on behalf of asylum seekers in the UK.

Investigations are focusing on an agreement the Home Office made with Rwanda to send some asylum seekers.

Although their applications will be considered by the East African nation, they will be offered accommodation and support, and if successful, can stay in Rwanda for up to five years with education and support.

If asylum claims in Rwanda fail, they can apply for a visa on other immigration routes if they wish to remain in the country, but there are also fears of deportation from Rwanda.

In practice, the policy is aimed at English Channel crossings (English Channel), through which more than 10,000 immigrants have passed so far this year.

The case against the Home Ministry, filed by a group of activists, has two stages:

First, prosecutors want to prevent deportation to Rwanda, saying they will leave soon.

Second, they want to challenge the legitimacy of such deportations to Rwanda.

“In light of misinformation”, UN Laura Dupinsky, a lawyer representing the Refugee Agency, told the court she wanted to make it clear that she was not in any way in favor of the ongoing arrangements between the UK and Rwanda.

UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, is responsible for overseeing international refugee law and providing institutional expertise.

Dupinsky noted that concerns were raised at two meetings between the agency and the Interior Ministry; One was held in April in the UK and the other was held in Rwanda the same month.

“During the meetings in April, the UNHCR raised issues related to the absorption capacity and specific refueling of refugees,” he added.

Further refoulement is the practice of forcibly repatriating refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they may be persecuted. It is illegal under international law.

He said the UNHCR had told the Interior Ministry that the plan was illegal because of the risk of forcible repatriation of Rwandan refugees.

The prosecutor added that the agency was concerned about the risks of “significant and irreparable harm” to refugees being sent to Rwanda, stressing that the agency “did not in any way support the Anglo-Rwandan arrangements.”

In documents submitted to the High Court, Home Office lawyers have argued that deportation of violators of immigration rules to the UK is an important public interest issue.

They said deportation under the terms of the agreement with Rwanda was “intended to prevent smugglers and human traffickers from making dangerous trips to the UK to seek asylum, having already traveled to safer third countries.”

In particular, but not exclusively, it aims to prevent small boats from arriving, saying it is “significant” that legal markers of those attempting to stop flights “do not take into account the impact of any factors on the public. Curiosity”.

Rita Hussein, a lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs, raised in court the UNHCR’s concerns about the shortcomings and shortcomings in Rwanda’s asylum system.

He said the agency’s concerns included evidence that asylum seekers could be arbitrarily denied access to investigations, deported by a lawyer or translator and to torture enforcement agencies.

He said Interior Minister Priti Patel had said that Rwanda was safe, but that the UN had not been able to properly monitor decision-making standards in the country.

Hussein continued: “These are concerns raised by UK officials, but the Home Secretary’s position is that the United Nations is giving the green light to this plan. This is a false statement.”

He added: “This is not the vision of a reputed voluntary organization, but the vision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and it is very important.”

The prosecutor added, “We are not on the ground in Rwanda, nor is the Interior Minister.”

Judge Jonathan Swift told the court that the judicial review of the entire policy would be completed within 6 to 8 weeks.