The European Union is pursuing support from the United Nations for a new plan to deport failed asylum seekers to third countries, aiming to establish legally robust “return hubs” outside Europe. The proposals, modelled in part on the UK’s defunct Rwanda plan, are being promoted as a response to what policymakers describe as an overwhelmed and malfunctioning European asylum system.
The scheme would involve deporting individuals whose asylum applications have been formally rejected to designated non-EU countries, including Tunisia, Egypt, Mauritania, Jordan, and Uganda. These countries would serve either as transit destinations or long-term relocation points. Crucially, unlike the British model — which aimed to process asylum claims offshore — the EU’s proposal would apply only to those whose claims have already been denied.
The Danish immigration minister, Kaare Dybvad, who chaired a recent meeting of interior ministers in Copenhagen, said the initiative was designed to “get control of migration flow back into the democratic sphere.” He added, “The European asylum system is broken, and we need innovative solutions. We are under pressure. We need to return people faster, and we need to make agreements outside of the EU.”
According to EU officials, around 80 per cent of failed asylum seekers ordered to leave European countries do not comply with deportation orders. Some have remained in Europe unlawfully, with a minority later implicated in violent crimes and terrorism-related activities.
The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, first proposed examining the feasibility of return hubs in 2024, referencing Italy’s bilateral agreement with Albania as a potential model. That arrangement, however, is still subject to legal scrutiny and has not yet been implemented.
By seeking the participation of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), EU officials hope to avoid the legal and political pitfalls that derailed the UK’s Rwanda plan. The UK government faced setbacks after the British Supreme Court ruled the policy unlawful in 2023, citing potential violations of international asylum conventions — a view echoed by the UNHCR.
In contrast, EU diplomats believe that involving the UN from the outset may ensure compliance with international law. A senior diplomat said, “It is about showing that this is not a taboo with the UN and that we can work with them to make it more legally viable.”
The UNHCR has not rejected the EU proposals outright but has called for stringent legal safeguards. These would include limitations on the length and conditions of detention, guarantees of judicial review, and respect for the principle of non-refoulement — the international legal norm prohibiting the return of individuals to a country where they may face serious harm.
As part of its evolving migration strategy, the EU has also proposed a revised Return Directive, tabled in March. This legislative package expands deportation options beyond the country of origin to include third countries transited during migration or designated return hubs. The proposed framework removes the automatic suspension of deportation during appeals, a mechanism often exploited by individuals to avoid removal.
However, the UN has voiced concern over this element of the plan. It argues that eliminating the right to remain during appeal processes could infringe on procedural fairness and increase the risk of wrongful expulsions.
Speaking at the same ministerial meeting, French interior minister Bruno Retailleau said that the current legal framework was inadequate to manage deportations effectively. “Today, our states are totally disarmed, especially for forced removals,” he said. “Throughout Europe, whether governments are conservative or social democrat, all the peoples have the same demand: control of mass immigration that has completely escaped us.”
The return hubs would be distinct from processing centres, such as those proposed under the UK or Italian models, which were aimed at deterring asylum claims by relocating applicants prior to the outcome of their case. EU policymakers have emphasised that the current proposal applies only to individuals already found not to qualify for protection under EU law.
In addition to deportations, the Commission is also considering “places of safety” to temporarily host and screen migrants prior to repatriation. These facilities would be distinct from permanent resettlement centres and would function primarily as holding points during the removal process.
The talks in Copenhagen form part of broader EU efforts to implement a common migration and asylum framework following years of piecemeal policies and national disagreements. The rise of populist and nationalist parties across the continent has intensified pressure on governments to act, with migration remaining a central issue in both domestic and European elections.
Legal experts suggest that any viable plan will require strong human rights oversight and the involvement of international bodies to prevent successful legal challenges. Member states have indicated a willingness to adjust their approach to secure that support.
While negotiations with potential host countries are ongoing, and UN backing remains uncertain, the EU’s initiative marks a significant shift in its external migration policy — with a growing focus on externalisation and return rather than reception and integration.
Starmer’s ‘One In, One Out’ Migrant Pact with Macron Risks Being Sunk by the European Commission
