Human Rights Concerns Grow Over U.S. Third-Country Deportations in West Africa

The key legal principle driving today’s litigation over third-country removals is not new. In Matter of I-S- & C-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 432 (BIA 2008), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a grant of withholding of removal does not terminate the removal order; it only prohibits removal to the specific country where persecution is likely.

DHS may still remove a person to another country if one will accept them. Practically, this means a person can “win” protection from removal to their home country under INA § 241(b)(3) (withholding) or the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and still face removal to a third country.

That outcome is central to reported transfers involving West Africa and concerns about chain refoulement. Recent reporting has focused on whether third-country arrangements (including Ghana) are being used in ways that undermine protection orders in practice, even if the government argues the framework is lawful.

Overview: Third-country removals and West Africa context

A “third-country removal” generally means DHS removes a noncitizen to a country other than the person’s country of nationality or last habitual residence. It differs from the standard removal pathway, which typically returns someone to their home country listed on the removal order, or to an alternate country under the statutory hierarchy if the home country will not accept the person.

West Africa is repeatedly cited in current reporting for operational and diplomatic reasons. Countries in the region may serve as transit points, hosts under bilateral arrangements, or destinations willing to accept transfers even when direct repatriation is contested.

Broader international debates about exporting asylum responsibilities—such as Europe’s “safe third country” trend—provide context for these policies. The most contested risk is chain refoulement, which describes a sequence where Country A transfers a person to Country B, and Country B then sends the person to Country C, where persecution or torture is likely.

Critics argue that even if the first transfer looks lawful on paper, the chain effect can defeat the purpose of non-refoulement protections.

Official statements and the legal backdrop

Following a reported Supreme Court action in June 2025, DHS messaging framed third-country removals as a security and enforcement tool, emphasizing the government’s authority to remove individuals with final orders—especially those labeled “criminal aliens.”

Separate reporting attributed to Reuters quoted DHS as saying that once a person is in another country’s custody, questions about onward actions should be directed to that country. The State Department, in legal declarations, asserted that it received diplomatic assurances from host countries that transferees would not be sent to places where they fear torture.

As a concept, diplomatic assurances are promises—often in formal notes or letters—about treatment, detention conditions, or non-transfer to particular countries. They may also describe monitoring or access provisions. Critics question assurances for recurring reasons: limited transparency, unclear enforcement mechanisms, and practical limits on U.S. monitoring once a person is in foreign custody.

The reporting also indicates this policy posture is being applied broadly to people with final removal orders, including people transferred to third countries and people asserting fear-based protections.

Key facts and policy details: agreements, incentives, and flight activity

In removal contexts, Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) and similar arrangements often address logistics: acceptance procedures, travel documents, custody transfers, timing, and points of contact. Some agreements may also address detention arrangements or onward movement, although details are not always public.

The countries named as hosting or partner countries include Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, Eswatini, South Sudan, and Uganda. The reporting describes these as acceptance arrangements for third-country removals.

The reporting also describes reported financial support—such as “migration management” assistance—as part of some arrangements. Conceptually, that kind of support can include training, transportation funding, infrastructure, or administrative capacity.

The controversy is predictable: payments can look like inducements to accept transfers, raising questions about voluntariness, oversight, and human-rights compliance.

Operationally, the reported removal-flight increase is legally relevant because scale affects process. Higher volume can strain access to counsel, compress timelines, and increase the odds that fear-based claims are not fully presented before transfer. The reporting reports 2,138 removal flights in 2025, a 44% increase over 2024, and a 239% year-over-year increase in removals to Sub-Saharan Africa.

Ghana is presented as the clearest illustration of chain-removal fears. The report states at least 30 third-country nationals were sent to Ghana in 2025, and at least 22 were later repatriated by Ghana to their home countries. That pattern is central to chain refoulement allegations because the feared harm may occur after the U.S. transfer, but as a foreseeable consequence of it.

Chain refoulement: legal and judicial context

“Chain refoulement” is not a single statutory term in U.S. immigration law, but it connects to non-refoulement principles embedded in withholding and CAT. Withholding under INA § 241(b)(3) is country-specific.

CAT protections under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18 bar removal where torture is more likely than not, and they also require careful analysis of who would inflict harm and whether officials would acquiesce.

A second BIA line of authority matters in chain-refoulement disputes: adjudicators often reject CAT claims built on speculative chains of events. In Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006), the Attorney General emphasized that CAT eligibility cannot rest on a hypothetical sequence unless each step is more likely than not.

That reasoning is frequently cited when applicants argue they will be transferred onward by third-country authorities. Still, the current factual pattern—reported transfers to Ghana followed by rapid onward repatriations—may shape how courts view “speculation” versus “foreseeable practice,” especially when there is evidence of repeated outcomes.

Several milestones frame the present posture:

1. June 23, 2025. A reported 6–3 Supreme Court ruling staying a lower court order that had blocked third-country removals.
2. September 2025. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan criticized the Ghana arrangement as resembling an end run around safeguards, while noting limits on her ability to halt flights.
3. November 5, 2025. Removal to Ghana in the reported illustrative case.
4. January 16, 2026. Reuters-attributed DHS statement addressing concerns about subsequent repatriations.

Impact on affected individuals and populations

The reporting highlights the reported case of Rabbiatu Kuyateh, a 58-year-old Sierra Leonean national who lived in the United States for decades. The account states an immigration judge granted protection from removal to Sierra Leone based on fear of torture.

She was reportedly removed to Ghana on November 5, 2025, and then repatriated to Sierra Leone within days, with video showing a forced transfer by Ghanaian officials. That timeline illustrates how chain refoulement risk can arise: U.S. protection may be formally honored as to the home country, while the third country’s actions may quickly place the person back in harm’s way.

Certain populations may face heightened risk in some third countries and upon onward return. The reporting references LGBTQ+ individuals (including from the Gambia) and political dissidents (including from Nigeria). In many cases, the relevant evidence includes criminalization laws, documented police abuse, public visibility, past harm, and whether the person’s identity or political activities are known to authorities.

Detention and custody conditions in receiving countries also matter. Lawyers often look for access to counsel, contact with family, independent monitoring, medical care, and whether there is a real opportunity to contest onward transfer. The reporting references detention concerns in Eswatini’s Matsapha Correctional Complex for some transferees.

For protection-based arguments, the most persuasive submissions typically combine country conditions (State Department reports, NGO documentation, news reporting) with individualized proof (past persecution, threats, political profile, medical records, affidavits).

Contextual notes: alleged loopholes and the limits of safeguards

Withholding and CAT are designed to prevent return to danger, but they operate through country-specific limits. That is the tension exploited by the alleged “loophole” theory described in the reporting: DHS may say it is not sending the person to the feared country, even if the third country predictably will.

Stopping removals can also be procedurally difficult. Emergency motions depend on custody location, which court has jurisdiction, whether the claim is considered a new challenge, and whether the person has had a meaningful chance to raise fear of removal to the third country. Timing is often decisive, especially when flights are scheduled and transfers occur quickly.

Safeguards cited by the government commonly include diplomatic assurances and monitoring. Those measures may be contested when terms are not public, enforcement is unclear, or there is evidence of repeated onward transfers. Courts tend to focus on process and transparency: notice, the ability to consult counsel, and the opportunity to present evidence before removal.

Official government sources and where to find more information

For primary documentation and updates, readers should rely on official sources and date-stamped releases. When cross-checking claims, focus on publication dates, archived pages, PDFs, and consistent attribution across reputable wire services.

Where possible, confirm whether a statement is DHS, ICE, or State, because internal responsibilities differ. The following resources can be starting points for official materials and updates:

• DHS Newsroom for enforcement announcements and agency statements
• USCIS Newsroom for benefits-related updates (often separate from ICE removal practices): https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom
• U.S. State Department for Human Rights Reports used in country conditions evidence
• Parliament of Ghana for local oversight claims and reporting

Note that the sections titled Official Statements and Legal Backdrop and Official Government Sources and Where to Find More Information will have interactive tools added separately; this text is intended to lead into those tools rather than duplicate structured data.

Practical takeaways

1. Withholding is not a free pass. Under Matter of I-S- & C-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 432 (BIA 2008), DHS may still attempt third-country removal.
2. Chain refoulement disputes are evidence-heavy. Applicants often must show onward transfer is likely, not speculative, while confronting Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006).
3. Act fast if third-country transfer is raised. Emergency litigation may be the only realistic tool in the final days before a flight.
4. West Africa cases may require tailored records. Country conditions, identity-based risks, and proof of past harm can be decisive.
5. Get qualified counsel. These cases combine detention logistics, fast timelines, and overlapping court rules. Representation is strongly recommended.

Resources:

• AILA Lawyer Referral