Campaigners hoping to torpedo the controversial Rwanda deportation scheme have been given a boost after top judges ruled they can appeal.
Today the High Court said the matter could be considered by the Court of Appeal.
Last month it was ruled that the policy - which has been widely attacked by human rights groups - was legal, although the court ruled in favour of eight people threatened with deportation.
The government claims flying asylum seekers to Kigali will act as a deterrent to small boat crossings, but a report by cross-party MPs said there was no evidence to support this.
The UK government has already paid £140 million to Rwanda without a single flight taking off.
Several organisations, including Care4Calais, had applied for the right to appeal.
Clare Moseley, the founder of the refugee charity said: "We remain committed to ensuring that no person who has suffered the horrors of war, torture and human rights abuses will be forcibly deported to Rwanda where their safety cannot be guaranteed.
“The people we work with in Calais come from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Sudan that have asylum acceptance rates that are as high as 82 - 98%.
"They are people who have escaped from the very worst things in this world and they urgently need our help."
Ms Moseley continued: "The Rwanda plan won’t end small boat crossings, it won’t stop people smugglers and it won’t keep refugees safe. There is a kinder and more effective way; giving safe passage to refugees in Calais.”
Mike Adamson, chief executive of the British Red Cross, said: “Outsourcing our asylum obligations should play no part in the UK’s refugee system. We are hearing directly from many people about the distress and anxiety recent announcements have provoked."
He added: “It also comes at a huge cost to the taxpayer and will do little to prevent people from risking their lives to flee from war, violence and persecution. Again and again, we hear from people that they have no prior knowledge of the UK's asylum system, so making it harsher will do nothing to stop them seeking safety on our shores."
Challenges were brought against the policy announced by then-Home Secretary Priti Patel in April, which she described as a "world-first agreement" with the east African nation in a bid to deter migrants from crossing the Channel.
UNHCR - the UN Refugee Agency - intervened in the case, telling the court that Rwanda "lacks irreducible minimum components of an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system", and that the policy would lead to a serious risk of breaches of the Refugee Convention.
Lord Justice Lewis, sitting with Mr Justice Swift, dismissed the challenges against the policy as a whole, but ruled in favour of eight asylum seekers, finding the government had acted wrongly in their individual cases.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said last month that she wants to see flights to Rwanda taking off "as soon as possible".
She added: “It’s what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to see happen.”
But a large number of MPs from all parties are not convinced that it will have the impact the government claims it will.
The home affairs committee last year said in a report: "There is no clear evidence that the policy will deter migrant crossings - numbers have significantly increased since it was announced in April."
