(YAOUNDÉ, CAMEROON) — Withholding of removal—a U.S. court-ordered protection that bars deportation to a specific country where a person would face persecution—has become a central defense for migrants now reported held in a Cameroonian detention facility under a quiet third-country transfer arrangement.
1) Incident overview: why a press-access dispute matters to an immigration defense
On Feb. 17, 2026, Cameroonian judicial police detained four journalists for about five hours in Yaoundé while they investigated a state-run compound reportedly holding African migrants transferred from the United States, according to accounts published by the Associated Press and press-freedom advocates. Those detained were AP reporter Nalova Akua, photographer Angel Ngwe, videographer Arnold Ndal, and freelance reporter Randy Joe Sa’ah. They were accompanied by lawyer Joseph Awah Fru, who represents several deportees and was later hired by AP.
Multiple accounts say officers confiscated cellphones, cameras, and a laptop during the encounter at or near the compound where interviews with non-Cameroonian detainees were taking place. Device seizure matters beyond the immediate news story. It can expose sources, reveal attorney-client communications, and chill future reporting about detention conditions and transfer practices. As of Feb. 23, the equipment was reported not to have been returned.
2) Journalists and legal context: a “trespass probe” and due-process concerns
Cameroonian authorities reportedly opened a criminal trespass investigation, but no charges had been filed at the time of reporting. Procedurally, “no charges” often means the government is still gathering statements and digital material to decide whether to charge, release property, or escalate allegations. That uncertainty can itself be coercive, especially when devices remain in government custody.
In practice, trespass probes can be used narrowly, to address access to restricted sites. They can also be used broadly, to justify detention, interrogation, and searches while officials evaluate other theories. Here, the journalists and the lawyer were questioned separately. Two were held in a communal cell, and two in offices, according to the reporting. The separation and the seizure of devices raised concerns that privacy could be compromised, including the possibility of password circumvention and review of source communications.
One lawyer involved in the matter expressed fear that authorities could “pry” into devices and then “fabricate charges,” reflecting a common press-freedom concern: once investigators possess devices, the scope of allegations can expand. Separately, one reporter alleged threats and intimidation, and accounts described an AP reporter being slapped or beaten, though AP indicated no serious injury.
This guide is most relevant to three groups: (1) reporters and lawyers documenting detention practices, (2) detained third-country transferees with U.S. protection orders, and (3) U.S. immigration counsel assessing emergency options when transfers occur with little notice.
Warning: If police seize a journalist’s or lawyer’s device, treat it as compromised. Password changes, source notification plans, and counsel-led privilege reviews may be urgent, depending on local law.
3) Deportation context: third-country detention and the role of withholding of removal
The facility was described as holding detainees from multiple African countries. Reported nationalities included Ghana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Angola, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Senegal, Kenya, and Sierra Leone. The reporting described transfers beginning in January 2026 and expanding in recent weeks, with totals reported in the teens.
For U.S. immigration law, the key point is the reported legal status of several detainees: withholding of removal. Withholding is authorized by INA § 241(b)(3). If granted, it prohibits the U.S. government from removing a person to the country where they would likely face persecution on account of a protected ground. Withholding is narrower than asylum under INA § 208. It does not lead to a green card and does not allow many derivative benefits.
Withholding also does not automatically bar removal to a third country. In many cases, DHS may attempt removal to another country willing to accept the person. That is where due process and international protection obligations collide with fast-moving third-country transfer practices. If the third country will detain the person, return them onward, or expose them to harm, the person may have additional claims, including protection under the Convention Against Torture regulations. CAT is implemented at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18.
The reporting also described alleged pressure dynamics: detainees being urged to “repatriate” to home countries or face prolonged detention. If accurate, that raises serious legal and human-rights questions, including whether “consent” to return is voluntary, informed, and free from coercion.
Warning: A person with withholding of removal may still face third-country transfer attempts. The legal fight often shifts from “home country return” to “any transfer that leads to persecution, torture, or chain refoulement.”
4) Reactions and responses: what advocates demanded, and what officials said
The Committee to Protect Journalists publicly called on Cameroonian authorities to end the trespass probe, return equipment, and prevent device tampering or retaliation against sources. The lawyer accompanying the journalists criticized the secrecy around where transferees are held and argued the public has a right to know.
On the government side, reporting indicated that Cameroon’s communications minister and spokesman declined comment, citing lack of details, and that multiple agencies and spokespeople did not respond or declined to address questions. Official silence matters in two ways. First, it limits verifiable facts about detention authority, legal basis, and oversight. Second, it complicates legal advocacy for detainees who may need documentation about custody, access to counsel, and the terms of any transfer arrangement.
Sources for the underlying accounts include Associated Press reporting, CPJ statements, and on-the-record comments attributed to the accompanying lawyer and one of the journalists. Several government entities were reported as not responding or declining comment.
Deadline: In U.S. immigration cases, emergency filings may be time-sensitive once a transfer is imminent. Counsel often acts within hours, not weeks, when removal logistics move quickly.
5) Press freedom context in Cameroon: why detention reporting is high-risk
Cameroon has been widely described as a difficult environment for independent reporting, especially on security matters and detention. In such settings, journalists commonly face intimidation, legal threats, and harassment when covering sensitive beats. Migration and detention stories are particularly sensitive because they can implicate security services, diplomatic relationships, and allegations of abuse.
Device seizure and access restrictions can chill reporting in concrete ways. Sources may stop communicating. Lawyers may limit discussions. Evidence of detention conditions can disappear. For migrants asserting U.S.-linked protection claims, that loss of documentation may also affect litigation abroad, because detention facts are often hard to prove without contemporaneous reporting.
6) Related U.S. policy context: third-country removals, notice, and court scrutiny
The Cameroon reporting ties into a broader debate about U.S. third-country removals and procedural fairness. When DHS removes someone to a third country, due process concerns often center on notice, the opportunity to contest, and meaningful access to counsel. Those issues become sharper when transfers happen quickly, with limited transparency about destination conditions.
Public reporting has compared the Cameroon situation to separate third-country transfer efforts, including transfers discussed in connection with El Salvador. The reporting referenced federal court scrutiny by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in a recent matter, described as addressing due-process shortcomings. Courts can demand clearer procedures, but outcomes vary by jurisdiction and by the posture of the case.
For defense strategy, the practical lesson is that withholding of removal is not always the end of the analysis. Counsel may need to build a record about (1) the risk in the receiving third country, (2) the risk of onward return, and (3) the client’s ability to obtain protection there.
Tip for families: If a loved one disappears into third-country custody, preserve every detail. Flight dates, escorts, detention location clues, and prior court orders can become key evidence for counsel.
Defense strategy: how withholding, CAT, and emergency litigation are typically built
A) Eligibility requirements (U.S. law)
Withholding of removal (INA § 241(b)(3)) generally requires showing a “clear probability” that the person’s life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The standard is typically higher than asylum.
CAT protection (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18) generally requires showing it is more likely than not the person would be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official in the country of removal. CAT does not require a protected ground.
In third-country transfer disputes, counsel often focuses on whether the third country is a lawful “country of removal,” whether the person received notice, and whether there is a meaningful chance to raise fear-based claims tied to that destination or to foreseeable onward return.
B) Evidence that typically matters
Strong cases often include:
- Prior immigration court orders granting withholding and the underlying findings.
- Country conditions reports and expert declarations on persecution or torture.
- Proof of individualized risk, including threats, past harm, or targeting evidence.
- Evidence about third-country detention conditions and legal pathways to protection.
- Documentation of onward-return risk, including deportation practices of the third country.
- Communications showing lack of notice or inability to contact counsel.
For journalists and advocates, documentation about detention locations, access restrictions, and conditions may become important corroboration for detainees’ claims, if it can be gathered safely and lawfully.
C) Factors that may strengthen—or weaken—cases
Factors that may strengthen a defense include credible, consistent testimony; corroboration; and clear proof that third-country detention creates a foreseeable path to refoulement or torture. Evidence of secrecy and lack of process may also support procedural claims.
Factors that may weaken a case include serious credibility problems, significant criminal history, or evidence that the third country offers real, accessible protection with due process. Each case turns on facts, and standards vary by circuit.
D) Disqualifiers and limits
Withholding can be barred for certain serious crimes, including “particularly serious crime” findings, and other statutory exclusions. Asylum has separate bars, including the one-year filing deadline and firm resettlement. CAT has fewer bars, but criminal history can affect the form of CAT relief and detention risk.
E) Realistic expectations and why counsel is essential
Even strong protection claims can face obstacles when transfers happen with little notice and limited access to counsel. Some cases result in temporary court-ordered pauses, but others proceed quickly based on custody logistics and jurisdictional issues. Because third-country transfer litigation can involve complex procedural vehicles, attorney representation is critical.
If you are a detainee, family member, journalist, or advocate connected to these events, consult a qualified U.S. immigration attorney promptly. If there is Canadian involvement—such as family in Canada, cross-border travel, or parallel claims—speak to Canadian refugee counsel as well, because Canadian procedures and remedies differ.
Official legal resources (U.S.): EOIR court information is available at justice.gov/eoir and USCIS policy and forms at uscis.gov.
⚖️ 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:
