- A Sierra Leonean nurse who lived in Maryland for nearly 30 years was deported to Ghana after a routine immigration check-in.
- Although she received protection from removal to Sierra Leone, Ghanaian authorities later sent her to Sierra Leone.
- A federal appeals court required notice and an opportunity to challenge proposed third-country destinations during ongoing litigation.
Rabbiatu Kuyateh, a 58-year-old Sierra Leonean nurse who lived in Maryland for nearly 30 years, is speaking out after immigration agents detained her at a routine check-in in July 2025 and deported her to Ghana. She had never lived there and said she had no meaningful ties to the country.
Kuyateh said she thought officials were returning her to the United States or handling her under existing immigration protections. Then they told her Ghana was her destination.
Free toolUSCIS Receipt Number Decoder
“Ghana? I’m not from Ghana; what am I going to do there?”
She had fled Sierra Leone during its civil war and made a life in the Baltimore area. She raised a U.S.-born son and cared for her parents. Her account of that life includes years in health care and work during the pandemic.
“I worked as a nurse for more than 20 years … I became a nurse manager during Covid. People died in my arms when their loved ones couldn’t be there. I was never a criminal. I paid my taxes. I obeyed the law. All I asked of America was to be allowed to stay.”
Her protection barred return to Sierra Leone, not every removal
Kuyateh had never received lawful permanent residence or asylum. She held renewable employment authorization and regularly checked in with immigration authorities.
After her detention, she obtained withholding of removal. That protection barred sending her to Sierra Leone, where she said she faced persecution or torture. Her claim drew in part on her father’s political-opposition activities and her experiences during the war.
The protection did not stop officials from placing her on a flight bound for Ghana. She traveled with 18 other people, including nationals of Senegal, Guinea, Gambia and Nigeria.
Withholding of removal generally applies to a particular country where a person establishes a risk of persecution or torture. It does not itself grant a green card, citizenship or a general right to remain permanently in the United States.
Ghana sent her onward to the country she feared
Ghanaian authorities first put Kuyateh in a hotel in Accra. Video reviewed by journalists showed that she was forcibly removed and sent to Sierra Leone four days later.
Human Rights Watch, which listed her among known African third-country removals, gave a different duration for the hotel detention: six days before she was returned to Sierra Leone. The accounts differ on the number of days, but both place her onward transfer after her arrival in Ghana.
Her case raises questions about whether U.S. officials can send a person protected from return to one country through another country that may transfer that person onward. The legal analysis can turn on whether officials gave notice, whether the person could challenge the proposed destination, the risk of onward transfer and the terms of any diplomatic arrangement.
A court required notice and a chance to challenge the destination
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled on September 18, 2026, that the administration could not carry out the challenged third-country removals without adequate notice and an opportunity to contest the destination. The ruling reportedly paused those removals while litigation continued in D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security.
The dispute reaches people with withholding-of-removal or Convention Against Torture protections tied to their home countries. A transfer elsewhere may still raise legal questions if it exposes someone to the harm the protection was meant to prevent. The court ruling focused on notice and a meaningful chance to contest where a person would be sent.
The policy’s reach extends beyond Kuyateh’s case. After January 2025, the administration reportedly sent more than 25,000 people to countries other than their countries of origin. By August 31, 2026, 28 receiving countries had been identified.
The litigation over notice and destination challenges was continuing after the First Circuit’s September ruling.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
