This study explores the United Kingdom’s Nationality and Borders Act’s inadmissibility criteria for asylum claims. An inadmissible asylum claim results in transferral to Rwanda to process the applicant’s claim, formalised under the Memorandum of Understanding. The study uses a normative legal method, applying international human rights law to national law to aim to determine whether the United Kingdom’s immigration law is in violation of articles 3 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as articles 31(1) and 33(1) of the Refugee Convention. Each article is applied respectively to sections 16 and 40 of the Nationality and Borders Act. The aim is subsequently achieved when the conclusion is reached that the Nationality and Borders Act is in breach of articles 3 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as articles 31(1) and 33(1) of the Refugee Convention. The results of this study highlight a discussion surrounding impermissible externalisation of asylum law, the limitations of international human rights law, and the interrelation between law and politics.