The United Kingdom delayed an aircraft slated to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda on Tuesday night after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the operation posed "a real risk of irreversible harm."

The decision to cancel the flight was the culmination of three days of fierce court challenges by immigrant rights attorneys who launched a flurry of case-by-case pleas to halt the deportation of everyone on the government's list.

Earlier in the day, British government authorities stated that the plane would take off regardless of the number of passengers. After the appeals, however, nobody remained. Friday, British media claimed that the number of probable deportees exceeded thirty.

After the flight was canceled, Home Secretary Priti Patel expressed disappointment but said she would continue to "do the right thing." She said, "Our legal team is reviewing every decision made during this flight, and preparations for the next flight have already begun."

Boris Johnson had vehemently supported Britain's plan, stating that it is a legitimate means to protect lives and combat criminal gangs who smuggle migrants across the English Channel in small boats. In recent years, Britain has experienced an unlawful inflow of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, and Yemen.

In April, Johnson announced an agreement with Rwanda in which illegal immigrants would be deported to the East African nation. Rwanda will receive millions of pounds in development assistance to agree to these conditions. The deportees may petition for asylum in Rwanda but not in Britain.

Opponents have maintained that sending people thousands of miles to a place they do not want to reside in is illegal and inhumane. Church of England officials joined the opposition and called the government's program "immoral." The opposition included Prince Charles, according to British press reports.

Activists have criticized the program as an assault on refugee rights, which most nations have acknowledged since the conclusion of World War II.

Enver Solomon, chief executive officer of the Refugee Council, stated that the British government's fear of deportation would not dissuade those seeking refuge in the United Kingdom.

Solomon stated, "The government must immediately reconsider by having an adult conversation with France and the (European Union) about sharing responsibility and establishing an orderly, humane, and equitable asylum system."

As a war, repression, and natural disasters drive many people to flee their homes, the UN refugee agency criticized the idea out of concern that other nations may follow suit.

Danish and Austrian politicians are discussing similar initiatives. Since 2012, Australia has run an asylum processing center on the Pacific island of Nauru.

Migration specialist Maurizio Albahari of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana summarized the UK's stance: "On a global scale, this unrepentantly punitive deal further condones the evisceration of the right to seek asylum in wealthy countries."

In the previous two decades, millions of people have been displaced across the globe, placing pressure on the international consensus on refugees. According to the United Nations refugee agency, there were more than 26 million refugees globally by the middle of last year, more than double the figure from two decades prior. More migrants have deliberately left their homeland, searching for economic opportunities in affluent nations.

These pressures have increased the number of Britons crossing the English Channel in leaky inflatable boats, often with tragic results. In November, a boat capsized in the waters between France and England, killing 27 passengers.

Johnson, struggling for his political life in the face of questions about his leadership and ethics, replied by pledging to end these dangerous journeys.

Although Rwanda was the scene of a genocide that murdered hundreds of thousands of people in 1994, the British government says that the country has developed a reputation for stability and economic success since then. Critics assert that the price of peace is political persecution.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi criticized the strategy as "completely wrong."

Suppose the British government is serious about safeguarding lives. According to Grandi, it should collaborate with other nations to combat people smugglers and offer safe pathways for asylum seekers, rather than just relocating refugees to other countries.

"The precedent this sets is disastrous for an idea that must be shared, such as asylum," Grandi said on Monday.

Archbishop of Canterbury and twenty-four other bishops from the Church of England have joined the voices urging the government to reconsider an "immoral policy that brings disgrace to Britain."

In a letter to the Times of London, the bishops stated, "Our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness, and justice, as we have for centuries."

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom refused to hear the last appeal on Tuesday, a day after two lower courts failed to halt the deportations. However, legal hurdles remained as lawyers filed individual requests on behalf of migrants.

Numerous migrants chose Britain as a destination for linguistic or familial reasons or because it is perceived to have a more open economy and excellent prospects than other European nations.

When the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union, migrants were compelled to seek asylum in the first safe country they entered. Those who reached the United Kingdom could be returned to the EU nations from whence they originated. The United Kingdom lost this choice two years ago when it left the European Union.

Since then, the British and French governments have sought to stop the travels, albeit with little success and much arguing. Last year, more than 28,000 migrants arrived in Britain on small boats, up from 8,500 in 2020.

According to Nando Sigona, an expert on migration at the University of Birmingham, if the Rwanda policy remains in place, fundamental values are at risk.

"How can we claim moral superiority when intervening in other nations if we are not signatories to providing protection to those fleeing war and persecution?" Sigona asked.