The High Court concluded last month that the proposal, introduced to cut record numbers of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats, was lawful.
But Asylum Aid, a charity supporting asylum seekers, was told it can ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider aspects of the judgment.
That includes whether the High Court judges were wrong to find there were sufficient safeguards to prevent asylum seekers being sent to a country where they were at risk of persecution.
It can also argue its case that the scheme is "systematically unfair".
No date was set for the hearing.
Lawyer Carolin Ott, representing Asylum Aid, said: "We look forward to presenting our client's case that the procedure adopted by the Home Office to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unfair and consequently unlawful."
Small boat crossings have become a political headache for the government, as numbers have soared, despite its claim that Brexit would allow the UK to "take back control" of its borders.
Last year, a record 45,756 people made the dangerous journey across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes from northern France.
The government signed a £140 million ($170 million) deal with Rwanda under which anyone deemed to have entered the UK illegally since January 1 last year can be deported to the African nation.
But a series of legal challenges, including at the European Court of Human Rights, has halted its implementation.