Iranian Man’s Second Small-Boat Crossing Returns to France Again

(FRANCE) An Iranian man who returned to Britain by small boat two weeks after being deported to France under the UK-France “one in, one out” scheme was sent back to France again on November 5, 2025, the Home Office said, in a case that has quickly become a test of the policy’s reach and its limits. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed the removal and said the swift turnaround showed the enforcement system working as intended, even as campaigners pointed to the man’s claims of exploitation and danger in northern France.

“Anyone looking to return to the UK after being removed under the UK-France agreement is wasting their time and money. This individual was detected by biometrics and detained instantly. His case was expedited and now he has been removed again. My message is clear: if you try to return to the UK you will be sent back. I will do whatever it takes to scale up removals of illegal migrants and secure our borders,” said Mahmood.

Her statement underscored how the government is using biometric checks and expedited procedures to push back against repeat small boat crossings, while relying on the bilateral UK-France agreement to carry out the returns.

The Iranian man first arrived in the UK on August 6, 2025, according to officials, and was deported to France on September 19, 2025 under the “one in, one out” arrangement. He crossed the Channel again on October 18, 2025 by small boat and was detained upon landing in the UK. After what ministers described as a fast-tracked review, he was returned to France on November 5, 2025, marking his second removal in less than two months. The Home Office said he was identified through biometric records at the border and taken into custody immediately.

The case has drawn sharp reactions because the man has told The Guardian he was a victim of modern slavery at the hands of smugglers in northern France.

“If I had felt that France was safe for me I would never have returned to the UK,” he said.

He fears being returned to traffickers in northern France, where he says he was previously tortured. Those claims have fueled questions about whether repeat removals under the UK-France agreement can safely protect people who say they face abuse in transit camps and smuggling networks on the French side of the Channel.

The UK-France “one in, one out” scheme began in August 2025 and is designed to deter irregular arrivals by small boat crossing routes. Under the arrangement, people who arrive in the UK by small boat can be detained and returned to France. In exchange, France agrees to transfer to the UK an equivalent number of people who apply through a safe and legal route. Ministers say the reciprocal transfer is intended to encourage lawful applications and reduce Channel crossings, while giving both governments a managed process for returns and admissions. As of November 5, 2025, 94 migrants have been returned to France and 57 people have arrived in the UK under the scheme, according to the Home Office.

Supporters of the policy say the rapid detection and removal of the Iranian man shows the system’s deterrent effect, particularly when returnees attempt a second small boat crossing. Officials point to the use of biometric databases to identify people who have already been removed and to move them quickly through detention and return procedures. Mahmood highlighted that process in her statement, stressing the government’s intention to “scale up removals of illegal migrants” and send a clear message that repeat attempts will fail. Government figures argue that, without rapid removals, smuggling networks would continue to profit by cycling the same people through the Channel again and again.

Critics, however, say the cycle is already evident and warn that the approach risks sending vulnerable people back into harm’s way. Human rights advocates have raised concerns that victims of trafficking may be swept into a fast-track process that does not fully examine claims of exploitation or risk in northern France. Some described the situation as “total chaos,” pointing to a person who has now been removed twice in as many months but insists he is not safe in France. Lawyers and charities have urged the government to draw a clearer line between people who are subject to removal and those who may have a credible claim to protection because of trafficking or torture. They argue that the man’s account highlights the tension between border enforcement and safeguarding duties.

Officials in London say the scheme includes safeguards and that France, as a partner in the agreement, has obligations to provide care and protection to people returned from Britain. The Home Office notes that people are screened, identified through biometrics, and processed based on their immigration history before removal is finalized. The government’s emphasis on speed is central to the deterrent strategy: ministers believe that quick returns reduce the pull factors for small boat crossings and deny smugglers proof that they can deliver passage into the UK. In this case, the Home Office says the Iranian man’s file moved through detention and return channels immediately after biometric confirmation of his prior removal.

The man’s timeline illuminates how swiftly the policy can operate. After arriving in Britain on August 6, 2025, he was removed to France just six weeks later on September 19, 2025. Within four weeks, he set off again, crossing the Channel on October 18, 2025, only to be identified and detained on arrival. By November 5, 2025, he was back in France for a second time. Government officials say such chronology is not accidental but reflects a deliberate effort to compress processing windows and shorten the period between detection and removal, particularly for people flagged by biometric records as repeat arrivals.

For the man at the center of the case, the returns have not ended the personal risks he says he faces. In his statement to The Guardian, he said he had been subjected to modern slavery by smugglers operating in northern France and indicated he feared being exposed to them again. Advocates say those camps and informal networks are fluid, making it difficult for authorities to monitor and protect vulnerable people. While the UK government describes France as a safe partner country, lawyers stress that individual experiences can vary and that alleged victims of trafficking may require tailored assessment before return, especially when they report torture or coercion.

The Home Office’s newest figures—94 returns to France and 57 arrivals in the UK under the reciprocal pathway—offer the clearest snapshot yet of how the policy is functioning. For ministers, the numbers signal that removals are outpacing admissions through the safe route, which they say should reduce pressure on Kent’s coast and discourage the small boat crossing model. For critics, the figures raise questions about what happens to those returned, whether France has adequate support in place, and how soon some may attempt the journey again. The Iranian man’s repeated efforts show that personal fears and smuggler pressure can outweigh deterrent messages, at least for some.

The case has also sharpened debate over how biometric systems are used in border enforcement. Mahmood emphasized that “This individual was detected by biometrics and detained instantly,” a statement that underscores the growing role of identity checks in tracking removals and re-entries. Supporters say such tools are necessary to prevent abuse of the system and to ensure that those already removed cannot slip back in. Civil society groups counter that biometric matches should not replace careful screening for vulnerability, especially in fast-track cases that can lead to immediate removal under the UK-France agreement.

French authorities have not publicly detailed the support the man will receive after his return, and there has been no official comment from Paris about his allegations of trafficking and torture in northern France. Under the agreement’s logic, returns to France are paired with transfers to the UK for people who have used a safe and legal route, which ministers say demonstrates that lawful pathways work while irregular crossings will fail. But for those who have already entered the smuggling system, the route back to safety is less clear. Advocates say that without targeted support on the French side, people like the Iranian man may remain at risk and in the shadow of the networks they are trying to escape.

The Home Office maintains that the policy is working. Officials say it is too soon to judge the long-term effect on small boat numbers but insist that immediate removals, backed by biometric identification and cooperation with France, are reducing the incentive to pay smugglers. For now, the agency’s public message is unequivocal: repeat attempts will trigger rapid detention and return.

“My message is clear: if you try to return to the UK you will be sent back,” Mahmood said, adding that she would “do whatever it takes to scale up removals of illegal migrants and secure our borders.”

That stance will be tested as more cases emerge and as legal challenges probe the balance between deterrence and protection.

The Iranian man’s journey—from first arrival on August 6, 2025, to removals on September 19, 2025 and again on November 5, 2025, with a second small boat crossing on October 18, 2025—has given both sides of the debate a concrete example to point to. For ministers, it is a proof point that the agreement can disrupt repeat entries. For critics, it is a warning that enforcement alone may not shield those who say they are preyed upon by traffickers. As the UK-France agreement beds in, the gap between those two views will shape how the policy evolves and how people at the center of cases like this are treated on both sides of the Channel.

For official updates and figures on removals and returns related to small boat crossings, see the Home Office.