THE High Court’s ruling that the Tories’ plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful is set to be challenged.

Two judges dismissed a series of cases brought against the Home Office’s policy in December, following a High Court challenge.

But at a hearing on Monday they gave the go-ahead for aspects of their ruling to be reconsidered by senior judges.

The Court of Appeal will be asked to consider a range of issues, including whether the High Court judges were wrong to find there were sufficient safeguards to prevent asylum seekers being returned to a country where they were at risk of persecution, and whether the scheme is “systemically unfair”.

READ MORE: Suella Braverman picks up Priti Patel's dregs with her grotesque Rwanda 'dream'

Lord Justice Lewis and Justice Swift granted permission to appeal to a number of individual claimants and charity Asylum Aid.

Asylum Aid, which provides legal advice to asylum seekers and refugees, will challenge parts of the December ruling related to the safety of Rwanda for migrants.

No date has been set for the hearing, and the Court of Appeal may also be asked to consider other issues which the justices refused permission to appeal against.

Clare Moseley, the founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, said that while they welcomed the leaves to appeal which were granted, they would be “discussing further appeals with our lawyers”.

The National: Volunteers go through donated clothes at the Care4Calais warehouse

“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,” Moseley said.

“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.

“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.”

READ MORE: UK Government's own website contradicts Priti Patel's claims 'Rwanda is safe'

In April last year, then-home secretary Priti Patel signed an agreement with Rwanda for it to receive migrants deemed by the UK to have arrived “illegally”, and therefore inadmissible under new immigration rules.

Several challenges were brought against the proposals, which were described at the time as a “world-first agreement” in a bid to deter migrants from crossing the Channel.

The first deportation flight – due to take off on June 14 – was then grounded amid a series of objections against individual removals and the policy as a whole.

However, at the High Court in London in December, senior judges rejected arguments that the plans were unlawful.

Lord Justice Lewis, sitting with Justice Swift, dismissed the challenges against the policy — which has already seen the UK pay Rwanda £140 million — as a whole.

However, they did rule in favour of eight asylum seekers, finding the Government had acted wrongly in their individual cases.

Following the ruling, current Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she remained “committed” to sending migrants to Rwanda as soon as possible.

The UK Government has refused to put a date on when the first flight to the Rwandan capital of Kigali could take off, recognising the threat of further legal action.

The Home Office previously said ministers “stand ready” to defend against further legal challenges to the Rwanda deportation policy.