(YAOUNDÉ, CAMEROON) — People facing U.S. immigration enforcement—especially those in detention or being removed—have a right to due process, including notice and a meaningful chance to seek protection from removal, and they generally have the right to consult counsel at no expense to the government. That right is grounded in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations that govern detention and removal procedures.
This rights guide explains what those rights are, who has them, and how families and advocates can try to exercise them in practice, using a recent incident in Yaoundé as context. It also explains common ways rights are waived, what to do if violations occur, and where to seek legal help.
1) Incident overview: why it matters for transparency and legal accountability
Four journalists and a lawyer were detained Tuesday in Yaoundé while reporting on a Trump administration deportation program that sent migrants to Cameroon. The group was at a state-run compound described as holding African migrants recently deported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They were interviewing about 15 deportees when police seized them.
Although the detentions occurred in Cameroon, the reporting target was a U.S.-linked removal pipeline. When access to deportees is restricted, it can reduce public scrutiny of whether removals complied with U.S. process requirements. It can also limit migrants’ ability to connect with counsel, document conditions, or preserve evidence relevant to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Detention-site access disputes also matter because many immigration rights are time-sensitive. Missed deadlines can end a case, even when a person has a strong claim.
Warning: Time limits in immigration cases can be short. Missing a filing date can permanently affect eligibility for relief.
2) Individuals detained: why media and counsel presence can be legally significant
Those detained in Yaoundé reportedly included journalists performing different documentation roles and a lawyer representing deported migrants:
- Randy Joe Sa’ah, a freelance journalist and former BBC reporter, was reportedly gathering information and conducting interviews.
- Nalova Akwa, described as a stringer for the Associated Press, was reportedly reporting and assisting with news coverage. “Stringer” typically means a local contributor who reports or provides material without being full-time staff.
- Angel Ngwe, an AP photojournalist, was reportedly photographing and documenting conditions.
- Arnold Ndal, an AP videographer, was reportedly recording video.
- Barrister Awah Joseph Fru, a lawyer, reportedly represented most of the detained migrants and was present in a legal-representation capacity.
Why does this matter for U.S. immigration rights?
- Counsel access can shape a person’s ability to raise protections. In U.S. immigration proceedings, individuals generally have the privilege of being represented at no expense to the government. See INA § 292; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(1). While government-funded counsel is not guaranteed in immigration court, access to a lawyer can be decisive for identifying relief, filing motions, and preventing mistaken removals.
- Documentation can preserve evidence for later proceedings. Photos, videos, and notes can become evidence about identity, fear claims, treatment, or coercion. They can also help establish timelines, which matter in detention reviews and post-order litigation.
- Media presence can support accountability. Public reporting may prompt record preservation or oversight inquiries. It can also surface patterns of removal practices that may later be litigated.
The specific “right” at issue for migrants is not a general right to have media present. It is the right to due process in U.S. removal actions and the practical ability to contact counsel, seek protection screening, and pursue review.
3) Treatment during detention: force, device access, and statement risks
Reports indicate at least one journalist suffered severe injuries after police beatings and kicking, collapsing in the detention cell. Authorities reportedly instructed the group not to take photos or videos at the compound. When the videographer did not comply, all four journalists and the lawyer were taken to the Judicial Police for interrogation.
From a rights perspective, the escalation from a detention site to interrogation creates several predictable legal risks for migrants and their advocates, even if the migrants themselves were not the ones interrogated:
- Statements can be misused or misunderstood. In many systems, interrogations can produce written statements that later shape official narratives. For migrants, inaccurate or coerced statements can later appear in custody or removal records.
- Devices can contain privileged or sensitive information. Phones and laptops often hold attorney-client communications, contact lists, drafts, and confidential materials. If those devices are accessed, it can expose migrants and witnesses.
- Fear-based claims depend on consistent fact development. In U.S. practice, asylum and related relief often turn on detailed credibility findings. Documentation gaps can complicate later protection claims.
In the United States, due process in removal proceedings requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See U.S. Const. amend. V. The details of what process is “due” can vary by posture and circuit, but notice and an opportunity to present claims are central themes.
Warning: If you are in U.S. custody, be careful about signing documents you do not understand. Ask for an interpreter and request to speak with counsel.
4) Current status: release does not end the legal exposure
All detainees were reportedly released, but their phones, laptops, and other equipment were confiscated after lengthy interrogations.
“Released” resolves only the immediate deprivation of liberty. It does not necessarily resolve:
- Property return. Confiscated equipment may remain in government custody. That can hinder ongoing reporting and legal representation.
- Work product and privilege issues. Legal files and communications can be protected under attorney-client privilege principles, but practical protection depends on local procedure and what was seized.
- Evidence preservation. When devices are taken, metadata, recordings, and contact histories can be altered or lost. That can affect later accountability efforts.
Follow-up steps typically include requesting written proof of seizure, identifying the agency holding the property, and making formal demands for return. If a lawyer’s materials were seized, counsel-to-counsel contact and written notices asserting privilege can be important.
5) Context of the deportations: third-country removal notice and protection screening
The reporting that prompted the Yaoundé visit centers on allegations of a secretive deportation program during the Trump administration era, tied to DHS removals to Cameroon. The New York Times reported on February 18, 2026, that deportees were flown to Cameroon under controversial circumstances. The report said none were Cameroonian nationals, they were told of the destination only shortly before departure, and some had legal protections against removal from the United States.
At a high level, these allegations raise three recurring legal questions in U.S. immigration law:
A) Notice and the ability to respond when the destination changes
When the government removes someone to a “third country,” the person may argue they lacked a meaningful opportunity to raise safety concerns tied to that specific country. Due process concerns can become sharper if notice is last-minute, because protection claims often require evidence and declarations.
B) Nationality mismatch and practical barriers to removal
If a person is not a national of the receiving country, removal may rely on that country’s agreement to accept them. That can create confusion about legal status on arrival and access to legal processes.
C) Potential protections “against removal”
“Legal protections” is a broad phrase. In practice, it may refer to several different bars or pauses on removal, such as:
- Pending appeals or motions. Some filings may create or support a request for a stay of removal.
- Protection-based claims. Asylum (INA § 208), withholding of removal (INA § 241(b)(3)), and CAT protection can bar removal to a place where a person is likely to face persecution or torture.
- Orders that limit removal. In some circumstances, a federal court or the immigration system may issue a stay or an administrative pause.
Whether any specific protection applies depends on procedural posture, deadlines, and the circuit. It also depends on what orders were entered and whether a stay was granted.
Deadline reminder: If a person is ordered removed, options to reopen or seek review can have strict time limits. A lawyer should evaluate the case quickly.
6) Geographical and institutional context: who does what, and where records may exist
The events occurred in Yaoundé, Cameroon, at a state-run compound described as functioning as a detention center for migrants deported from the United States. Several institutions may hold relevant records, but responsibility can be fragmented:
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS components (including ICE for removal operations and CBP at ports of entry) may possess records about custody, removal routing, and travel documents.
- EOIR (Immigration Courts and the BIA). If a person had removal proceedings, EOIR may have hearing records, orders, and filings.
- U.S. Department of State (DOS). In some cases, diplomatic coordination can affect removals and receiving-country arrangements.
- Cameroonian authorities. Local police and judicial entities may hold custody logs, seizure receipts, and interrogation notes.
- Media organizations and counsel. Notes, interview logs, and time-stamped communications can help reconstruct timelines.
Conceptually, documentation that may exist across systems can include: flight manifests, custody transfer logs, property seizure forms, interrogation summaries, detention rosters, and communications between agencies. Access rules differ by country and legal system, and records may not be publicly available.
The right being explained: due process, notice, and access to counsel in U.S. removal matters
Legal basis (U.S.)
- Due process: U.S. Const. amend. V (applies to “persons,” not only citizens).
- Counsel at no expense to the government: INA § 292; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(1).
- Asylum and related protection frameworks: Asylum under INA § 208; withholding under INA § 241(b)(3). CAT protection is implemented through regulations.
Who has these rights?
- U.S. citizens: Cannot be removed, but may be detained briefly during identity disputes and should assert citizenship immediately.
- Lawful permanent residents (LPRs): Have due process rights and may be placed in removal proceedings under certain grounds.
- Visa holders: Have due process rights in removal proceedings and may have eligibility for protection claims if they fear return.
- Undocumented individuals: Still have Fifth Amendment due process protections as “persons” in the United States, and may seek asylum or other protection if eligible.
Rights can look different at different stages. Border processing, expedited removal, and post-order removal each have distinct rules. A lawyer should assess which framework applies.
How to exercise the rights in practice (families, migrants, advocates)
- Ask where the case is and who has custody. If the person was in the United States, determine whether they were in ICE custody, in immigration court, or already subject to a final order.
- Request counsel quickly. Ask to contact a lawyer. If detained in the U.S., request phone access and an interpreter if needed.
- Preserve documents and timelines. Keep copies of any notices, A-numbers, prior orders, and dates of detention or flights.
- Avoid accidental waivers. Do not sign forms without interpretation. Do not accept “voluntary departure” or removal arrangements without legal review if there may be relief.
Warning: People sometimes waive rights by signing paperwork under pressure, or by missing a court date. Those missteps can be hard to undo.
Common ways rights are waived or lost
- Failing to appear in immigration court. This can lead to an in absentia removal order.
- Signing stipulated removal or accepting removal without review. Some documents can waive a hearing or appeal.
- Missing appeal or motion deadlines. Even strong claims can be barred by late filing.
- Not updating address with immigration court. This can cause missed notices.
If rights may have been violated: practical steps
- Get the record. In the U.S., obtain the immigration court record and any written orders. Ask counsel about FOIA requests to DHS or EOIR when appropriate.
- Ask about emergency options. In fast-moving removal situations, counsel may consider a stay request, motion to reopen, or federal court options, depending on posture and jurisdiction.
- Document everything. Names, dates, locations, and copies of communications matter.
- Report detention condition concerns. If the person is in U.S. custody, counsel can advise on complaints through DHS/ICE channels and oversight mechanisms.
Because the Yaoundé incident involves Cameroonian enforcement actions, local counsel may also be needed for property recovery, assault allegations, and detention-law questions in Cameroon.
Where to find legal help
- U.S. immigration attorney referrals: AILA lawyer referral
- Nonprofit legal directory: Immigration Advocates Network nonprofit legal directory
- EOIR information (immigration courts): EOIR
- USCIS information and resources: USCIS
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
