The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acknowledged that its notice about deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Ghana was “premature,” reversing course after Ghana’s government publicly said it would not accept him. On October 10, 2025, international outlets reported DHS had told Abrego Garcia’s attorneys he would be removed to Ghana. Hours later, Ghana’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, said Ghana had communicated to U.S. officials that it would not receive him. DHS then told the legal team the notice should be disregarded.
What Ghana and DHS said
Ghana’s position is firm: a limited arrangement with the United States allows acceptance of a small number of non-criminal West Africans on humanitarian grounds. It does not apply to a Salvadoran national facing criminal charges in the United States. Ghana stressed it will not expand that arrangement to cover Abrego Garcia or similar cases.
As of October 10, 2025:
– There is no agreement for Ghana to accept him.
– DHS has retracted the Ghana removal notice and labeled it “premature.”
The episode highlights that diplomatic consent from a receiving country is essential for third-country removals.
For readers who want the official framework DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) use in such cases, ICE provides guidance about removal operations on its website at https://www.ice.gov/removal.
Policy context and why the attempt stalled
The timeline is unusual. Reports that DHS planned to deport Abrego Garcia to Ghana surfaced on October 10, 2025, citing a notice sent to his lawyers. That same day, Foreign Minister Ablakwa publicly said Ghana would not accept him and had already told U.S. authorities. Soon after, DHS told counsel the deportation notice was “premature.”
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the swift reversal underscores how third-country removals rely on diplomatic consent and clear intergovernmental coordination — which was not present here.
Ghana explained that its arrangement with the United States is narrow:
- It covers a small number of non-criminal West Africans.
- It applies only under specific humanitarian grounds.
- It does not extend to non-West Africans or to persons facing criminal charges in the U.S.
- Ghana will not broaden the arrangement to accommodate Abrego Garcia.
This stance aligns with international practice: receiving states typically set strict criteria and retain the right to refuse entry to non-nationals without prior agreement.
Prior third-country options and precedent
This is not the first time a third-country option was suggested for Abrego Garcia. Eswatini and Uganda were previously discussed in legal filings, but no confirmed action followed.
El Salvador—his country of nationality—did accept him earlier in 2025, but that removal was later undone by a U.S. court order.
Case background and current status
Abrego Garcia’s path through immigration and criminal systems has been fraught:
- He was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March 2025 despite a court order blocking removal because of credible threats of persecution. U.S. authorities later admitted this was an administrative error.
- By court order, he returned to the United States in June 2025.
- After his return, a federal grand jury in Tennessee indicted him on human smuggling charges. He has pleaded not guilty.
- His legal team says the charges may be retaliatory; that claim has not been proven in court.
- His immigration case remains under judicial review.
As of October 10, 2025, three facts are clear:
1. Ghana will not accept Abrego Garcia and has relayed that position to U.S. officials.
2. DHS has retracted its notice of deportation to Ghana as “premature.”
3. There is no confirmed destination for any future removal at this time.
Practical effects and stakes for families and advocates
The procedural back-and-forth affects more than paperwork. It influences:
- Detention duration and conditions
- Access to counsel and time to prepare a defense
- Medical planning and safety assessments when a country is named for removal
When DHS lists a country—even tentatively—it can trigger urgent legal motions and preparations. If that notice is withdrawn, the person can remain in limbo and possibly detained longer while options are reassessed.
Key practical notes:
– If DHS lists a new country for removal, expect defense counsel to verify that country’s consent before courts treat the plan as viable.
– Any future deportation attempt must comply with active court orders in both the criminal and immigration cases.
– Outcomes in the Tennessee criminal case (trial or dismissal) may affect custody and timing, but will not automatically resolve the immigration case.
Legal and diplomatic implications
The Ghana episode underscores a fundamental point: DHS cannot unilaterally deport someone to a third country that refuses to receive them. Acceptance from the receiving country is essential.
For Ghana, the public response aimed to protect a carefully defined humanitarian channel. Officials emphasized they would not broaden the program designed for specific West African cases to include a non-citizen facing criminal charges from outside the region. That clarification helps avoid setting a precedent that could strain resources or alter the purpose of the arrangement.
For DHS, calling the notice “premature” signals internal recognition that the necessary diplomatic green light was missing. It also serves as a reminder that removal planning must align with both court orders and external consent from any proposed receiving country.
The earlier wrongful deportation to El Salvador adds weight to every decision point now. Courts will likely scrutinize any future removal steps closely. Defense counsel are expected to challenge moves that appear to sidestep judicial limits or safety concerns, while prosecutors will stress the government’s interest in custody and prosecution. Immigration judges and federal courts will continue to referee the overlap between criminal proceedings and removal timelines.
What to watch next
- DHS has not announced any alternative country.
- Ghana has not changed its stance.
- The official status remains: no removal to Ghana; the prior notice should be ignored.
VisaVerge.com reports the episode could prompt DHS to tighten internal checks before issuing country-specific notices in complex cases, particularly where diplomatic consent is uncertain. That change would aim to reduce confusion for attorneys, courts, and affected families and limit public missteps that draw rebukes from foreign ministries.
Abrego Garcia’s case remains unsettled. His attorneys continue to litigate the immigration case and defend against federal charges. Ghana has closed its door. DHS has retracted its “premature” notice. The next steps will depend on:
– Court calendars,
– Prosecutorial decisions,
– Whether any country agrees—formally and in writing—to receive him.
This Article in a Nutshell
On October 10, 2025, DHS notified attorneys it intended to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Ghana but then retracted the notice as “premature” after Ghana publicly refused to accept him. Ghana made clear its narrow humanitarian arrangement with the U.S. covers only a small number of non-criminal West Africans and does not extend to a Salvadoran facing criminal charges. Abrego Garcia had been wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March 2025, returned by court order in June 2025, and now faces federal human-smuggling charges in Tennessee. The episode underscores that diplomatic consent is essential for third-country removals and that courts will closely scrutinize future removal attempts.
