one in, one outmigration deal faces deportation to Syria after French authorities rejected his asylum claim. The case demonstrates the practical application of the 2025 agreement, as France deems the return safe despite Syria’s absence from the EU’s safe-country list.
The implementation of a proposed solution to the English Channel crossing crisis has met the legal reality of individual asylum claims. A 26-year-old Kurdish man, who arrived in the UK on a small boat and was subsequently returned to France in November 2025, has had his application for asylum in France rejected. According to reporting by The Guardian, the man now faces the prospect of being returned to Syria.
The situation is believed to be the first case of its kind under the one in, one out
scheme. The deal, announced in July 2025 by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, was designed to deter small-boat crossings by forcibly returning one asylum seeker to France in exchange for legally bringing one person from northern France into the UK. A central tenet of the agreement was the assertion that France constitutes a safe country for those being returned.
The contradiction of ‘safe’ return
The current case illustrates the difference between broad diplomatic assurances and specific administrative rulings. While the UK and France framed the agreement around the safety of returnees, the French authorities have ruled that the man’s specific circumstances do not warrant protection. The rejection letter, as seen by The Guardian, explicitly states that Syria will be safe for him.
“The individual … has not presented any relevant arguments that would convince the office that his personal circumstances would pose a serious and individual threat to his life or person should he return to his country.” French asylum authorities
This ruling stands in contrast to broader regional standards. Syria is not included on the recently updated EU list of safe countries for asylum seekers. In this instance, French authorities have determined that while a country may not be deemed safe in a general sense by the EU, a specific person’s return to that country does not pose a serious threat based on their individual profile.
This risk of onward deportation to unsafe territories was a primary point of failure in the previous British government’s efforts to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda. The current mechanism involves a different partner state, but the possibility remains that individuals could be returned to conflict zones if their asylum claims are rejected by the host nation.
Forced conscription and the YPG
The man’s flight from Syria was driven by the threat of forced military service. He fled the country last year after being informed by his village chief that the YPG, a Kurdish militia operating in the area, had placed his name on a list for conscription. He stated, I didn’t want to go to war and kill people,
according to the interview details reported by The Guardian.
During his journey, he attempted to flee with his mother and younger siblings, using smugglers to cross into Turkey. During the transit, smugglers separated him from his family and forced him into a different vehicle. He has since lost contact with them, stating, I do not know what has happened to my family. I have not managed to make contact with them since the smugglers separated us.
The French asylum process, which determined his current status, involved two interviews. The first lasted one hour and 12 minutes, followed by a second session of 49 minutes. Much of the questioning focused on requiring the man to prove his residency in his home village.
Legal vulnerability and the Home Office
For the individual involved, the rejection of his French asylum claim creates a legal deadlock. He describes himself as the first asylum seeker returned under the scheme to receive such a rejection. He now faces a choice between two perceived dangers: return to Syria or an attempt to re-enter the UK.
The man expressed the physical toll of the process, noting that stress has caused his hair to fall out at age 26. He noted that he followed the rules of the one in, one out
framework by claiming asylum in France, only to have that claim denied.
The prospect of returning to the UK via a small boat carries the risk of immediate detention by the Home Office. Conversely, he believes that returning to Syria would lead to his capture by the YPG militia. This places the asylum seeker in a position where the diplomatic “safety” of the transit country—France—does not ensure a positive outcome for the final asylum decision.
The case demonstrates how migration deals can be affected by the administrative discretion of a partner state. While the political objective of the July 2025 deal was to stop the flow of boats, the result for this individual is a trajectory that leads back toward the conflict he originally fled.
