(CAMEROON) — The primary defense strategy for people facing reported “third-country deportation” to Cameroon is to seek an emergency stay and raise “third-country fear” protections under withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), while challenging inadequate notice and procedures.
Reports and official statements as of Thursday, February 19, 2026 indicate the Department of Homeland Security is implementing removals of some asylum seekers and other noncitizens to Cameroon even when they are not Cameroonian. Because these cases can move fast, the most effective approach is typically a coordinated, attorney-led plan that combines (1) rapid filings to pause the transfer and (2) evidence tailored to the specific risks in the third country.
Warning: If you learn DHS is seeking to transfer you to a third country (or you suspect it), treat it as an emergency. Many people report receiving little or no notice before transport.
1) Overview: what “third-country deportation” means, and what is being reported
A third-country deportation (often called a third-country removal) is a U.S. removal to a country other than the person’s nationality or last habitual residence. It is distinct from:
- Voluntary departure (leaving on your own, with conditions, under INA § 240B)
- Refugee resettlement (a separate program outside removal proceedings)
- A routine removal to the person’s home country under INA § 241
What is being reported is narrower and more unusual: non-Cameroonian people, including some with protection from return to their home countries, being removed to Yaoundé, Cameroon.
The legal framework usually points back to DHS’s authority to execute removal orders and designate countries of removal. The statute governing country selection is primarily INA § 241(b)(2). In some circumstances, DHS asserts it can remove a person to a third country that will accept them, including under arrangements or assurances.
This framing matters because a person may be protected from removal to Country A (their home country) but still face DHS efforts to remove them to Country B (a third country). That is where litigation and emergency motions often concentrate.
2) Official statements and policy milestones (and why TPS changes matter)
DHS has publicly confirmed removal operations tied to third-country arrangements, stating it is “applying the law as written” following immigration judge decisions. Public messaging has also linked 2026 enforcement to tighter humanitarian policies, including changes to parole and TPS.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian designation that can allow eligible nationals of a designated country to remain in the United States temporarily and apply for work authorization. TPS is statutory. See INA § 244.
When TPS for a country is terminated, beneficiaries can lose the TPS-based protection from removal once any transition period ends. They may also lose work authorization tied to TPS unless another basis exists. For Cameroonians, the termination date has been a significant milestone in the policy environment. It can also increase the number of people in removal proceedings who previously had TPS stability.
In third-country removal reporting, TPS is relevant in two ways:
- It reflects a broader enforcement direction.
- It can shift who is exposed to detention and fast-moving removal logistics.
Deadline note: If DHS issues a notice setting a removal date, the window to request a stay can be extremely short. Counsel often files the same day they learn of a transfer risk.
3) Key facts and operational details that shape legal defenses
Mechanics of third-country removals. Operationally, a third-country removal typically requires:
- A final order of removal (or a reinstated order)
- DHS selection of the removal country under INA § 241(b)(2)
- Acceptance, permission, or coordination by the receiving country
- Transportation and handoff on arrival
Even small reported numbers can signal a program that can scale quickly, because logistics and templates can be reused.
Reported flight activity. Reporting has described:
- A January 2026 flight carrying about nine people to Yaoundé
- A mid-February 2026 flight carrying about eight additional people
Reported nationalities. Reports have included people from Angola, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Morocco, and Zimbabwe. Nationality diversity matters because it suggests the program is not tied to one regional conflict. It may be a general third-country transfer tool.
Funding discussions. Oversight reporting has discussed substantial U.S. payments or support to third-country hosts. Financial incentives can affect implementation speed and transparency. It can also become relevant in discovery and oversight requests, though removal defense is usually fought first in emergency filings.
Why protections like withholding and CAT still matter. Withholding of removal and CAT are country-specific protections, but they can become contested in third-country scenarios. A person may have an order barring return to their home country, yet still argue they face persecution or torture in the third country.
At a high level:
- Withholding of removal requires showing a “clear probability” of persecution on a protected ground if removed to the proposed country. See INA § 241(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).
- CAT protection requires showing it is “more likely than not” the person would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, a public official in the proposed country. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.
The Board has recognized disputes that arise when DHS changes the proposed country of removal and when fear-based protection must be evaluated against that country. See Matter of A-S-M-, 28 I&N Dec. 282 (BIA 2021).
4) Context and significance: externalization, due process, and refoulement risk
Externalization is a practical concept. It means shifting the enforcement endpoint offshore by sending people to third countries that agree to receive them. The legal fight then often centers on whether the United States provided a fair process before transfer.
Cameroon as a destination can draw added scrutiny because defense claims often focus on:
- Conditions of confinement after arrival
- Access to asylum procedures in the receiving country
- Risk of onward transfer or pressure to depart
Refoulement is the principle against sending someone to a place where they face persecution or torture, or where they may be sent onward to such harm. In U.S. law, this is closely tied to withholding and CAT protections. Third-country transfers can raise refoulement disputes when the person claims the third country is unsafe or will send them onward.
Litigation can also invoke statutory country-of-removal rules. The Supreme Court addressed parts of the third-country removal structure in Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005), a decision practitioners still cite in country-designation disputes.
5) Impact on individuals and a practical defense checklist (what to gather fast)
People report sudden transfers, restraints during transport, and arrival detention in state-run facilities. If you or a family member faces this scenario, a defense strategy often turns on speed and documentation.
Detention and access constraints. In many facilities, access to phones, interpreters, and counsel can be limited. That makes prior preparation and outside coordination critical.
Coercion dynamics. Reports have described people being told they can leave detention only if they “voluntarily” return to their home country. That can matter legally because it affects the record of what happened and whether any “choice” was meaningful.
Legal limbo and emergency motions. The most common legal tools include:
- Emergency stay requests filed with the relevant authority (depending on posture)
- Motions to reopen or reconsider at the Immigration Court or BIA when new facts arise or procedures were defective
- Habeas or emergency federal court filings in limited circumstances, often tied to due process and custody issues (highly jurisdiction-specific)
Because the correct forum depends on posture, attorney triage is essential.
Evidence that typically helps in third-country fear claims.
- A sworn declaration describing feared harm in Cameroon and why you cannot safely relocate there.
- Country conditions evidence specific to Cameroon, including detention conditions and treatment of migrants.
- Any prior threats, incidents, or identifiable risk factors that make you more vulnerable.
- Proof of procedural problems: lack of notice, inability to contact counsel, or inability to present fear.
- Medical or psychological records supporting trauma and vulnerability, if available.
Communication steps that can reduce harm.
- Share your A-number, full name, DOB, and detention location with family and counsel.
- Keep copies of all DHS paperwork, custody notices, and flight-related documents.
- If possible, document names and statements of officials involved in transfer decisions.
- Notify your consulate carefully, but only after speaking with counsel when fear involves government actors.
Warning: Do not sign documents you do not understand, especially anything framed as “voluntary return,” without legal review and an interpreter if needed.
6) Official sources and where to verify updates
For readers tracking policy and effective dates, three primary source categories matter:
- USCIS TPS Cameroon page: Typically lists designation or termination details, who may file, work authorization guidance, and official links to notices.
- Federal Register notices: These provide the controlling legal text on effective dates, wind-down periods, and procedural instructions.
- DHS Newsroom: This is where DHS posts operational statements and policy announcements, which can be time-stamped and verified for recency.
You can also monitor EOIR practice updates and standing orders through the Executive Office for Immigration Review at justice.gov/eoir, especially if your case involves rapid filings.
Outcome expectations (realistic, not guaranteed)
Because the program is relatively new and publicly available data is limited, there is no reliable success-rate statistic for stopping third-country transfers to Cameroon. Outcomes depend heavily on:
- Whether counsel can get an immediate stay
- The strength of third-country fear evidence
- The procedural record showing whether DHS provided meaningful notice and a chance to be heard
- The circuit law governing the case and the client’s procedural posture
What is consistent is timing: cases with prepared counsel and organized evidence are better positioned to request emergency relief before a transfer occurs.
Attorney representation is critical. Third-country removal cases can involve overlapping systems: ICE enforcement, EOIR court orders, and federal court emergency practice. A qualified immigration attorney can identify the correct forum, preserve the record, and file time-sensitive stays.
Legal resources
- AILA Lawyer Referral: aila.org/find-a-lawyer
- EOIR (Immigration Courts): justice.gov/eoir
- USCIS TPS (Cameroon): uscis.gov humanitarian TPS Cameroon page
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
