Rwanda Sues United Kingdom at Permanent Court of Arbitration (pca)

(THE HAGUE) — Asylum seekers from Rwanda who are already in the United States should treat “defense strategy” as a two-track plan: preserve eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection while actively managing new January 2026 government holds and visa pauses that can stall cases for months or longer. The policy shifts arrived just as Rwanda launched high-profile international arbitration against the United Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), a reminder that geopolitical disputes can quickly spill into migration adjudications.

This article explains the core relief options and practical steps counsel often take when a client’s case is slowed by enhanced screening. It also addresses the broader Rwanda–United Kingdom dispute now pending at the PCA, because that public record may shape the questions applicants face in credibility, security, and “self-sufficiency” vetting.

Warning: If you are in removal proceedings, do not miss an Immigration Judge deadline because a separate USCIS process is “on hold.” Courts and USCIS move on different tracks, and missed dates can be fatal to a case.

Background of the Rwanda–UK dispute

Rwanda has initiated international arbitration against the United Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. The dispute centers on Rwanda’s claim for over £100 million (about $138 million) tied to the 2022 Migration and Economic Development Partnership.

Rwanda alleges the UK failed to pay two scheduled installments of £50 million each, allegedly due in April 2025 and April 2026. Although this PCA dispute does not decide anyone’s asylum claim, it has elevated Rwanda-related migration issues worldwide.

The dispute also provides a public narrative that may influence how officials ask questions about identity documents, prior travel, and government interactions.

Arbitration proceedings and financial specifics

Rwanda’s arbitration was triggered by formal action on January 27, 2026. Rwanda seeks £100 million and points to the two unpaid £50 million installments.

The UK has said it will defend the claim and has framed the underlying scheme as a costly failure. The arbitration timeline matters for practitioners because it drives headlines that can shape adjudicator attention.

Headlines can prompt requests for additional background evidence and more detailed interviews.

U.S. policy context in January 2026 (why cases may stall)

In January 2026, two U.S. policy moves directly affected many Rwandan nationals.

• USCIS policy memorandum (January 1, 2026). USCIS expanded an adjudicative hold covering pending asylum applications and other benefit requests from “high-risk” countries, including Rwanda. The practical effect for many applicants is delay, re-review, and sometimes re-interviews. Verify updates through the USCIS Policy Manual and policy memoranda page at uscis.gov.
• State Department announcement (January 14, 2026). The Department of State announced an indefinite pause on immigrant visa issuances for nationals of 75 countries, including Rwanda, pending review tied to “financial self-sufficiency” and public-charge framing.

The “public charge” concept is a term of art in U.S. immigration law. It is most relevant to certain family-based and employment-based immigrant visa pathways, not to asylum grants.

Still, broader “self-sufficiency” rhetoric can influence questioning and documentation expectations.

Warning: A USCIS “hold” is not a denial, but it can delay work authorization renewals, travel documents, and adjustment of status. Plan renewal filings early and keep proof of timely submission.

The defense strategy: asylum, withholding, and CAT as the core relief options

For Rwandan nationals fearing return, the main defenses to removal in the United States typically are asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.

1) Asylum (INA § 208)

To qualify, an applicant generally must show they are a “refugee,” meaning they face persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The one-year filing deadline often applies. See INA § 208(a)(2)(B).

Key procedural point: asylum can be filed affirmatively with USCIS, or defensively in removal proceedings before EOIR.

2) Withholding of removal (INA § 241(b)(3))

Withholding has a higher burden than asylum. The applicant must show it is more likely than not they would be persecuted on a protected ground.

Withholding does not lead to permanent residence, but it can prevent removal to Rwanda.

3) CAT protection (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18)

CAT requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant would be tortured, by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. CAT does not require a protected ground.

These defenses remain available even when USCIS benefit adjudications are slowed. But forum and procedure matter. Many applicants do best when counsel coordinates strategy across USCIS and immigration court.

Eligibility requirements and common procedural choke points

One-year deadline and exceptions

Asylum must usually be filed within one year of last entry. Exceptions may apply for changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances. See INA § 208(a)(2)(D).

Bars to asylum

Common statutory bars include certain criminal convictions and firm resettlement. Prior immigration fraud allegations can also trigger heightened scrutiny and credibility issues.

Credibility, corroboration, and the “hold” environment

Where USCIS applies enhanced review, adjudicators may focus on inconsistencies across prior visa applications, asylum statements, and interviews.

Adjudicators may also scrutinize identity and civil status documents, military, police, or political affiliations, and social media or travel history that conflicts with claimed fear.

Even when an applicant is truthful, poor preparation can create avoidable contradictions.

Deadline: If you are in immigration court, comply with EOIR filing deadlines for applications and exhibits. Ask the court for clarity in writing if a USCIS hold affects documents you are waiting to receive.

Evidence typically needed to succeed

Strong asylum, withholding, and CAT cases are evidence-driven. Counsel often aims to build four categories of proof.

1. Applicant-specific evidence
   • Detailed declaration, consistent with prior records
   • Affidavits from witnesses with first-hand knowledge
   • Medical or psychological evaluations when relevant
   • Police reports, court records, or proof of threats when available
2. Country conditions evidence
   • Human rights reports and credible NGO documentation
   • Expert declarations tailored to the applicant’s profile
   • Evidence addressing internal relocation and government protection
3. Record reconciliation
   • Copies of prior DS-160s, visa filings, I-589 versions, and prior statements
   • Explanations for omissions that are realistic and consistent
   • Translations and certified copies where possible
4. Security and identity documentation
   • Passport history, national ID details, and birth records
   • Proof of residence and employment history
   • Evidence addressing any prior detentions or government contact

In a “hold” environment, attorneys frequently front-load corroboration. The goal is to reduce the need for repeated interviews and Requests for Evidence.

Factors that strengthen or weaken Rwanda-related protection claims

Factors that may strengthen cases

• A clear nexus to a protected ground, supported by specifics
• Prior targeted harm, not just generalized insecurity
• Documented attempts to seek protection and the government’s failure to respond
• Consistent chronology across all filings and interviews
• An expert report that addresses the applicant’s precise risk profile

Factors that may weaken cases

• Material inconsistencies about dates, political activity, or travel
• Evidence suggesting the applicant can safely relocate within Rwanda
• Prior misrepresentations in visa or refugee contexts
• Delayed filing without a strong one-year exception argument
• Criminal history that triggers discretionary concerns or statutory bars

Because adjudicators may be alert to perceived “template” claims, individualized detail matters. Practitioners should assume closer questioning, not less, when a nationality is under enhanced review.

Disqualifying factors and bars to relief

Some issues can block asylum and sometimes withholding. Particularly serious crimes and aggravated felony concerns may bar asylum and withholding in many circumstances.

The persecutor bar and terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds can apply even without criminal convictions. Firm resettlement can bar asylum where the applicant had a durable status in another country.

Prior removal orders and reinstatement can limit relief to withholding and CAT in many cases. These topics are technical and often turn on record-of-conviction analysis and circuit law. Representation is essential.

Realistic outcome expectations in January 2026

No reliable public dataset yet shows how the January 2026 USCIS hold will change grant rates for Rwandan applicants. What can be said with confidence is procedural: cases may take longer.

Delays can affect work authorization renewals (timing and continuity), ability to travel even with pending advance parole requests, and family-based processing abroad due to the State Department pause.

In removal proceedings, Immigration Judges may continue merits scheduling even if USCIS benefits are slowed. For many, the practical objective becomes keeping the case “alive,” well-supported, and deadline-compliant until adjudication resumes.

Why attorney representation is critical

Enhanced review policies raise the stakes for small mistakes. An experienced immigration attorney can choose the correct relief mix (asylum vs. withholding vs. CAT) and manage one-year deadline arguments and evidentiary foundations.

Counsel can coordinate filings across USCIS and EOIR, preserve appeal rights, prepare for re-interviews and credibility challenges, and build a record anticipating BIA and circuit-court review.

Immigration courts, the BIA, and federal courts apply different standards of review. A case built for the first interview may not survive appeal unless it is structured carefully from the start.

Official sources and where to verify information

For updates and primary documents, rely on:

• USCIS Newsroom: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom
• USCIS policy memoranda portal: https://www.uscis.gov (navigate to legal resources and policy memoranda)

Resources:

https://www.aila.org/find-a-lawyer