Withholding of removal and “third-country deportations”: a defense strategy when DHS seeks removal to a country that is not yours
A key defense when the government tries to remove someone to a “third country” is to invoke protections against removal to that specific destination, even if the person already has a final removal order. “Third-country deportations” generally mean removal to a country other than the person’s country of citizenship or last habitual residence. The U.S. may pursue them when a home government delays or refuses repatriation, or when DHS asserts operational or public-safety reasons to remove someone quickly.
On Friday, February 13, 2026, the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a Democratic report that sharply criticizes this practice. The report alleges high costs, weak oversight, and disputed humanitarian and legal impacts. It also challenges whether outcomes justify spending, given the rate of later returns to home countries. The executive branch, by contrast, has framed third-country removals as an operational tool used in limited, “targeted” cases.
The Quick Stats Bar associated with the report summarizes the headline figures: at least $40 million in spending; roughly 300 third-country deportations; 47 to 80 agreements pursued; and more than 80% of people later returning, or being processed to return, to their home countries. Those numbers matter for oversight. For defense strategy, what matters most is this: third-country removal can still be challenged, and the window to act may be extremely short.
1) Overview of the report and key findings (what it alleges, and what the government disputes)
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democratic staff report describes third-country deportations as removals achieved through diplomatic arrangements with countries that accept non-nationals. The report argues the practice has been “costly, wasteful, and poorly monitored.” It points to instances where per-person costs were unusually high, and where people were later moved again on additional U.S.-funded travel.
The report also raises process concerns. It alleges that some individuals received very short notice of the destination country. That short notice can make it hard to contact counsel, collect evidence, or ask an immigration judge to intervene. The report further suggests that the government’s use of third countries may reduce meaningful review of safety risks in the destination.
At the same time, DHS and State Department messaging has tended to emphasize that third-country removals are not a routine tool. They are presented as a solution for hard-to-remove cases, including instances where home-country repatriation is difficult. That framing sets up an important legal point: even if DHS claims necessity, the law still restricts removal to a country where the person would face persecution or torture.
2) Official statements and government responses (DHS, State, and the “exit bonus” messaging)
Public statements cited in the report reflect the administration’s justification for third-country removals. DHS has characterized certain operations as necessary when a person’s home country “won’t take them back.” A DHS press release dated June 23, 2025 described removals of individuals DHS labeled “uniquely barbaric,” asserting their home countries refused repatriation. After a mid-2025 flight to Eswatini, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin made similar claims about refusals by home countries.
At the diplomatic level, the State Department typically plays the central role in arranging agreements, assistance packages, or other support to receiving countries. In January 2026 Senate testimony, Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended removals in public-safety terms, referencing arrests and removals of alleged gang members. The report, however, questions whether the costs and safeguards match those stated objectives.
In early 2026, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also promoted a separate track: voluntary self-departure through the CBP Home App, described as paired with a $2,600 “exit bonus.” As presented publicly, that concept is closer to voluntary departure/self-removal messaging than a courtroom defense. It is not a substitute for asylum, withholding, or Convention Against Torture (CAT) protections. It also is not a guarantee of future immigration benefits. People considering any “exit bonus” program should first assess how it affects pending relief, bars, and reentry consequences.
Warning: If DHS tells you a third-country removal flight is imminent, you may have hours—not days—to contact counsel, request a stay, or file an emergency motion. Do not wait for written paperwork if officers are giving verbal notice.
3) Key facts and statistics by country (and why per-person costs vary)
The Democratic report highlights several country examples to illustrate its allegations about cost structure, transparency, and outcomes:
- Rwanda: The report describes direct payments and separate flight costs for a very small number of removals. With only a handful of people moved, fixed costs can push per-person figures extremely high. The report questions monitoring and longer-term outcomes.
- Equatorial Guinea: The report describes a similar payment amount tied to a larger cohort than Rwanda. A bigger group can lower per-person costs, even if the lump-sum payment is comparable.
- El Salvador: The report describes funding connected to transfers of Venezuelan nationals and detention at CECOT, a maximum-security facility. It notes allegations about detention treatment and the resulting policy controversy.
- Eswatini: The report ties funding to a small number of removals and connects the operation to broader concerns about notice and process.
- Palau: The report describes an agreement and funding but states that no third-country nationals have been accepted yet. That distinction matters. Agreements do not always result in removals due to capacity limits, political constraints, or implementation problems.
Per-person costs can vary for mundane reasons that do not resolve legal concerns. Costs can shift based on aircraft type, security staffing, detention and processing logistics, medical escorts, and payments labeled as assistance to partner governments.
The report also describes an expansion strategy—pursuing dozens of agreements. In practice, that can mean ongoing negotiations, discussions about funding, and attempts to establish monitoring expectations. It can also mean uneven implementation.
4) Context and significance: why this matters for immigration court defenses and oversight
For defense counsel, the most important context is how third-country removals interact with protection-based relief.
Fiscal oversight. The report argues inefficiency is shown by repeat transportation and later returns to home countries. If a large share of people eventually go back to their home countries anyway, Congress may ask why third-country transfers were needed first. Appropriations questions often drive policy changes.
Legal and process concerns. A recurring issue is whether the person has withholding of removal or CAT protection. Withholding of removal is a protection that bars DHS from removing a person to a specific country where persecution is more likely than not. See INA § 241(b)(3). CAT regulations can also bar removal to a country where torture is more likely than not. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18. These protections do not automatically grant lawful status. They restrict where DHS can send the person.
A government may argue that sending someone to a third country complies with a removal order while respecting a bar on removal to the home country. That argument is often where litigation and emergency motions arise, especially when notice is short or when the destination itself presents serious risks.
Monitoring and accountability. Monitoring in government-to-government arrangements can include welfare checks, detention condition verification, and tracking how funds are used. The report alleges such follow-up has been limited. If monitoring is thin, courts and advocates may press harder on evidence of safety and on procedural protections before transfer.
Deadline: Motions for a stay of removal can be time-sensitive. In many cases, lawyers file emergency requests with EOIR, the BIA, or federal courts depending on posture. The correct forum depends on where the case is pending.
5) Impact on affected individuals: due process, safety, and the evidence that matters
The report alleges people sometimes received 6 to 24 hours’ notice of the destination country. From a defense standpoint, short notice can impair the ability to assert fear-based protections tied to the destination. It can also make it hard to gather medical evidence, contact family, or obtain translation help.
The report also describes allegations of harsh detention conditions and mistreatment in certain destinations, including references to South Sudan and detention in El Salvador. These claims are contested in public debate, and conditions can vary by facility and by person. Still, such allegations matter legally because the risk analysis is destination-specific. The question often becomes whether removal to that third country creates a likelihood of persecution, torture, or onward refoulement.
Mental health risk can also be central. Panic, self-harm risk, and decompensation may be relevant to custody decisions, humanitarian parole requests, or emergency litigation. They can also support the urgency of judicial review when removal is imminent.
Evidence that is commonly useful in third-country removal disputes includes:
- Any prior immigration judge or BIA order, including grants of withholding or CAT
- Proof of identity and nationality, including passports and consular documents
- Medical and mental health records, especially if travel or detention creates acute risk
- Declarations explaining fear of the destination country, including fear of onward return
- Country-conditions materials tied to the specific destination, not only the home country
- Evidence of U.S. family ties, community support, and attorney contact attempts
Warning: Signing papers in detention can have lasting effects. Ask for an interpreter if needed. Try to obtain copies of anything you sign.
6) Official government sources and where to read more (primary documents first)
For readers tracking claims about third-country deportations, primary documents are essential. DHS materials are usually best for operational announcements and enforcement framing. The State Department newsroom is typically best for diplomatic statements, press releases, and, at times, foreign assistance explanations. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee site is the place to find the Democratic staff report and any accompanying materials. The White House Briefing Room is the best starting point for official statements, fact sheets, and press briefings.
When sharing information, check the publication date and version of each document. Policies and practices can change quickly, especially when funding, litigation, or diplomatic negotiations are active.
The official sites referenced in the Source Attribution Box include DHS, the State Department newsroom, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the White House Briefing Room.
Practical tip: If a loved one may be subject to third-country removal, collect case documents now. Keep A-numbers, prior orders, and medical records accessible.
Realistic expectations—and why a lawyer is critical
Third-country removals sit at the intersection of removal orders, diplomatic arrangements, and protection-based limits. Outcomes depend on posture (detained or not, final order or pending case), prior grants (withholding/CAT), and the evidence tied to the proposed destination. Some cases may be paused through emergency stays or renewed fear screening. Others may move quickly if counsel is not engaged early.
Given the speed and complexity, representation is not optional in practice. A qualified immigration attorney can identify the right forum for an emergency stay, develop destination-specific fear evidence, and coordinate with family for records and declarations.
Resources:
⚖️ 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.
