Appeals court limits US deportations to unfamiliar countries

A federal appeals court has ruled that US immigration officials cannot deport detainees to unfamiliar countries without first giving them notice and a genuine chance to object. The decision is a major setback for the Trump administration’s expanding use of so-called third-country removals, CBS News reports.

The Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld an earlier order by District Judge Brian Murphy, who found that Department of Homeland Security procedures violated detainees’ rights. The appellate ruling says a person facing deportation must be told where the government intends to send them and allowed to explain why removal to that destination could expose them to persecution or torture.

The judgment addresses a policy introduced by DHS last year. Under its rules, officials could send migrants to countries other than their own if those governments had provided the State Department with broad assurances that deportees would not be persecuted or tortured. When such assurances existed, detainees could be given no advance warning of the destination. If a country had not offered those guarantees, officials were instructed to provide some notice.

The appeals court rejected that distinction for the most part. Its reasoning was that legal protection against removal to a dangerous place has little practical value if a detainee is not told the destination in time to challenge it. The court therefore required what it described as a meaningful opportunity to contest the proposed removal.

A policy reaching far beyond Latin America

The dispute concerns an increasingly prominent part of the administration’s immigration enforcement programme. The government has negotiated agreements with more than 30 countries, including Liberia, to accept people removed from the United States. Some deportees are sent elsewhere because court orders prevent the government from returning them to their countries of origin while leaving open the possibility of removal to another nation.

According to an advocacy group cited in the report, more than 25,000 migrants have been sent to third countries during the Trump administration. About four-fifths of those removals went to Mexico. Others have been sent much farther away, including to countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

CBS News recently reported on migrants flown to Liberia the previous month. The group included citizens of Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela, as well as people from other African countries. They were staying in a hotel in Liberia and said US Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not told them in advance that West Africa would be their destination. They also said they had not been given an opportunity to challenge the removal on that basis.

The cases illustrate why the notice question is central. A person who has never lived in a proposed destination may have no family, legal status or support network there. The journey can also place someone in a country where they fear mistreatment, even if they would face a separate legal barrier to being returned home.

Government says removals can continue

The ruling does not immediately halt the policy. DHS General Counsel James Percival said on X that the third-country programme remained in operation because the First Circuit’s decision was not currently effective. He also maintained that officials could send people to another country when they claimed fear of returning to their homeland.

The decision is expected to be challenged before the Supreme Court. Even before any further appeal, however, it represents a significant legal loss for an administration that has made aggressive deportation a central part of its immigration policy.

The case was brought by immigration advocates, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. The group said the government could not avoid safeguards against persecution and torture simply by selecting a different deportation destination. Its executive director, Trina Realmuto, said many people covered by the litigation had been removed to countries they had not been told about and had received little or no chance to describe the risks they faced there.

The First Circuit’s ruling leaves the administration’s broader third-country arrangements in place for now, but it places a significant procedural condition on their use. Before a detainee can be sent somewhere unfamiliar, immigration officials must provide enough information and time for that person to challenge the destination.