- Federal courts currently allow transfers to third countries while litigation over removal policies continues in twenty twenty-six.
- Advocacy groups report over thirteen thousand people sent to Mexico between early twenty twenty-five and March twenty twenty-six.
- The policy affects due process and legal access for individuals with pending protection claims in states like Iowa.
Federal courts have allowed the U.S. government to continue transferring some people to countries other than their own while litigation proceeds. The policy has reached residents in Iowa, including people with unresolved immigration cases or protection claims.
A federal court blocked the practice in February 2026. Later appellate activity and an action by the Supreme Court allowed the transfers to continue during the court fight.
Amnesty International reported that the United States expanded removals from February 2025 onward and made new arrangements with more than 30 countries. The receiving countries may have no meaningful connection to the people sent there.
That can leave a person away from family, counsel and familiar language while the underlying case remains unresolved. The consequences can reach court calendars and protection claims.
Transfers can separate people from their cases
Human Rights Watch and other advocates say roughly 13,000 third-country nationals were sent to Mexico between January 2025 and March 2026. They describe lengthy delays and continuing uncertainty for many of those people.
People affected in the state may miss hearings or lose contact with their lawyers after a transfer. Relatives may not know where someone is being held. Families can also remain separated while they try to determine whether the person can return to the United States.
Advocacy groups challenge the practice under due-process principles and immigration law. Their objection focuses especially on transfers made without individualized consideration before departure.
The dispute is particularly acute for asylum seekers and people with pending protection claims. A person transferred to a third country may later face detention or another removal, including onward return to a place where the person fears harm.
The receiving country is not necessarily the person’s country of origin. That distinction can affect access to counsel, language assistance and a meaningful opportunity to present a protection claim.
Notice and fear claims may shape state cases
In an individual case, legal questions may include whether the Department of Homeland Security gave notice, whether the person raised a fear claim and whether the destination appeared in the notice or order.
Those facts can shape the challenge to a transfer. They may also affect whether the person had an opportunity to object before leaving the United States.
Reports from June and July 2026 described continued movements involving countries in Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. The arrangements have been characterized by advocates as secret or opaque.
That criticism reflects an advocacy position, not a final court finding. Groups opposing the policy say it can operate as a way to remove people without placing them directly on a flight to their home countries.
The policy tension is strongest when a person’s protection claim remains open. It is also acute when the person lacks reliable contact with a lawyer or family members after transfer.
The court fight continues as transfers remain active
Third-country removals expanded sharply during 2025–2026, according to rights organizations tracking the practice. They say the system has created prolonged legal limbo for people sent to countries where they have no established ties.
The continuing litigation leaves the outcome dependent on the facts of each removal and the court handling the challenge. Notice, the asserted fear claim and the destination identified in government paperwork may all become part of the record.
People facing these circumstances may need advice based on their immigration file, protection claim and removal documents. This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
