𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Migrants who successfully won a High Court battle with the Home Office wanted a UK education and believe it is “a better country” than France, court documents show.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s one-in-one-out deal with Paris was dealt a blow after a group of asylum seekers claimed their deportations were unlawful.

Immigration officials removed a migrant’s right to demand their claims to be a victim of modern slavery be re-examined.

But Mr Justice Sheldon ruled the change was unlawful, with potentially crucial medical evidence often only available after initial decisions are made.

This could be hugely problematic for the Home Office, as it could give migrants 30 days to have their rejected modern slavery claims re-examined.

Under the terms of the treaty, the UK has 14 days to submit the paperwork for a removal and claims must be exhausted.

And High Court documents revealed how migrants cherry-picked the UK.

One of the claimants, KAG “asserted that he “did not claim asylum in France due to concerns about poor treatment of asylum seekers and lack of support. [He] expressed a desire to claim asylum in the UK to pursue education and because [he] believe[s] it is safer”.

The High Court judgment added of AYA: “He said he did not claim asylum in France because he “saw people sleeping rough in the streets”. AYA also said that he had been told the United Kingdom “was a better country and this is why he came here”.

The Home Office, during the trial, warned that giving migrants 30 days to challenge rejected trafficking claims could lead to widespread abuse.

Daniel Hobbs, the Director General of the Migration and Borders Group, said it could lead to abuse.

And it could throw the entire scheme into doubt.

He said: “We are now aware that around 40% of individuals notified of the intent to return them to France under the Treaty have been referred into the NRM [National Referral Mechanism].

“In the context of the Treaty, there was an added urgency as it requires that an individual be removed to France within a set timeframe of their acceptance by the French government (subject to the possibility of agreeing an extension) and therefore any delay to removal could have a detrimental impact on the pilot.”

In a judgment on Friday, judge Mr Justice Sheldon ruled the amendment was unlawful, finding that potentially decisive evidence such as medical reports is often only available after the initial decision is made.

He added that for some people facing removal, including those facing removal under the deal with France, “relevant evidence casting doubt on the correctness” of these decisions “will be disregarded”.

He continued: “In my judgment, such a decision-making process cannot be regarded as robust and effective, and so could not have been within the contemplation of Parliament.”

The judge added “there are bound to be many cases where a victim of trafficking will not be identified” because decision makers do not have the needed evidence, and that 79% of initial decisions that were reconsidered in 2025 received a different outcome.

He continued: “There will often be language difficulties, which will not be resolved by the use of an interpreter.

“The questions posed about exploitation may not be fully understood.

“In these circumstances, it would not be surprising if incomplete accounts are given of alleged trafficking experiences or if none are given at all.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Last-minute modern slavery claims must not be used to frustrate the removal of illegal migrants.

“We are reforming our laws to stop dubious last-minute claims, while strengthening protections for those who need them.

“The Home Secretary will fight this in the courts and appeal this judgement.”