- Human Rights First and Refugees International said the U.S. forcibly transferred more than 23,000 people to third countries.
- A fear statement may trigger screening, but migrants often get only 24 hours or 6 hours to respond.
- Liberia agreed to accept up to 1,200 deportees as the First Circuit reviews the policy’s legality.
Human Rights First and Refugees International said the U.S. government forcibly transferred more than 23,000 people to 26 third countries between January 20, 2025 and August 15, 2026. The transfers have sent migrants into countries where they may have no personal ties, legal status, or lasting route to remain.
Some deportees have been taken to Equatorial Guinea, the Central African Republic, and Liberia. Others faced detention, temporary admission, or pressure to return to the countries they originally fled. Their next destination can remain uncertain.
The system permits third-country removal when sending someone to the country of citizenship, or another connected country, is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” The authority does not override protections against persecution or torture.
The policy is still operating. Its legality remains before the courts.
A fear statement can determine whether screening happens before transfer
The July 2025 ICE memorandum allows the Department of Homeland Security to rely on diplomatic assurances from a receiving government. If the Department of State considers those assurances credible, the person “may be removed without the need for further procedures,” according to the Congressional Research Service.
When assurances do not exist or are not credible, Immigration and Customs Enforcement must issue a Notice of Removal naming the intended third country. The migrant must then affirmatively express fear of persecution or torture there to obtain screening under USCIS procedures.
The timing can be narrow. CRS reports a 24-hour waiting period after notice, reduced to 6 hours in “exigent circumstances.” Those shorter cases require attorney access and approval from a senior DHS official.
A missed step can carry serious consequences. The screening mechanism depends on the person raising the fear before the transfer takes place.
Temporary reception can leave deportees without a durable legal status
Many receiving countries offer no realistic long-term stay. Deportees may lack legal status, an asylum framework, or another route to settle permanently.
Some depend on temporary hospitality. Others face detention or onward removal. Reported consequences include family separation and “chain refoulement,” in which a third country sends a person onward to the country they originally escaped.
In some cases, officials tell deportees that their permission to remain will last only a short time. That can leave people under pressure to return to their country of origin, even when the original removal raised fears about their safety.
The transfer network now spans Africa and the Americas
CRS and advocacy groups have described arrangements involving countries across several regions. The countries named in the material include:
| Region or route | Countries identified in reporting |
|---|---|
| Africa and Atlantic routes | Cabo Verde, Liberia, Uganda |
| Central America and the Caribbean | Belize, Guatemala, Honduras |
| South America and North America | Ecuador, Paraguay, Canada |
Liberia agreed to accept up to 1,200 third-country deportees from the United States on August 19, 2026. The arrangement adds to a broader network of “safe third country” or transfer agreements.
The phrase can obscure two separate legal questions. One concerns whether a person may be barred from asylum because another country is considered safe. The other concerns where the government may execute an existing removal order.
The policy remains active while the First Circuit reviews its legality
In February 2026, a district court dissolved an injunction and entered final judgment vacating the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy. The First Circuit then stayed that judgment pending appeal.
That ruling kept the policy in effect while the challenge proceeds. The appeal therefore reaches both procedure and safety: whether the government gives migrants a meaningful chance to raise protection claims, and whether the receiving country can protect them after arrival.
The asylum bar under INA § 208(a)(2)(A) is separate from the authority used to carry out a removal order. The statutory provision most often discussed for the latter is 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E)(vii), alongside related rules governing the order of countries considered for removal.
The central legal risk is whether the receiving country is actually safe. A related question is whether screening occurs before departure rather than after a migrant has already entered a precarious temporary arrangement.
People facing a proposed transfer may need prompt legal advice because the notice period can be measured in hours. This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
