Judge Warns of U.S. End-Run Tactics in Ghana Deportations

(GHANA) A federal judge said the United States appeared to be doing an “end-run” around court-ordered protections by sending five protected migrants on flights to Ghana in 2025, a move now at the center of a new lawsuit.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice filed the case in 2025, alleging that U.S. officials used deportations to Ghana to sidestep final decisions by immigration judges who had already granted fear-based relief to Nigerians and Gambians.

According to the complaint, four of the five were restrained in “straitjackets” during a 16-hour trip, and, once they landed, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer told them they would be moved onward to their home countries.

One plaintiff has already been sent from Ghana to Gambia, the group says, while the other four face an uncertain timeline and an “imminent threat of deportation at a time unknown.”

Lawsuit details and judge’s concern

The case centers on a legal shield known as fear-based relief. In these cases, immigration judges find that a person is more likely than not to face persecution or torture if returned to a certain country. That ruling blocks removal to that country under U.S. and international duties not to send people into harm.

Advocates say the government attempted an end-run around those findings by flying people to Ghana, a third country, and then arranging onward travel to Nigeria or Gambia. Noah Baron, assistant director of litigation at AAAJ, called it a “very concerning pattern” that risks lives while defying court orders that protect them.

The U.S. government has not provided public comment on the specific deportations to Ghana or on the pending case as of mid-September 2025. The judge’s “end-run” remark, raised during early court review, signals rare judicial concern that removal tools may be used to undermine prior relief.

Human impact and policy stakes

For the five people at the heart of the lawsuit, the risk is clear. They already convinced U.S. courts that returning them to Nigeria or Gambia would likely expose them to abuse or worse. Being sent to Ghana, then told they could be transferred onward, left them in limbo.

This situation raises several urgent questions:

• Does removal to a third country dodge the promise not to send someone back to danger?
• Who is responsible when a chain of transfers leads to harm?
• What oversight exists after a person is flown to a third country?

Civil rights groups argue the practice undermines the asylum system. If confirmed, it could make people less willing to speak openly in court, fearing that protection on paper won’t stop a different route to the same result. It may also strain relations with Ghana, which becomes a stopover for removals it did not authorize as final returns.

There is also a practical layer. People who win protection still face detention, restraints, long travel, and fresh uncertainty. The report that four were flown in “straitjackets” drew outrage from advocates who said that level of restraint was unnecessary and harmful.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case could set a wider marker for how the United States treats third-country transfers when direct returns are blocked. The site notes that courts may soon draw clearer lines on what counts as removal “to” a barred country versus removal “through” another state.

The lawsuit also highlights a gray area: who monitors people after they’re flown to a third country. If the U.S. role ends at a Ghana tarmac, but a handoff later sends someone to harm, advocates argue that the promise of protection was hollow. Judges now face the task of deciding how far that responsibility extends.

Allegations of a deliberate process

In court filings, AAAJ describes a step-by-step process that it says shows deliberate misuse of removal power:

1. Migrants win fear-based relief from U.S. immigration judges.
2. They are placed on a flight to Ghana.
3. On arrival, they are told they will be moved onward to Nigeria or Gambia.

If the court finds those steps are part of a single removal plan, it could treat the third-country leg as part of the unlawful removal, not a separate, lawful action.

For now, the four who remain in Ghana face daily stress over when the next plane might come. Lawyers say they have limited access to their clients and cannot predict timing. Family members in the United States worry that a quiet transfer could happen with little warning.

Government position, oversight, and legal stakes

ICE’s public materials describe a broad removal toolkit, including charter flights and transfers. The agency’s general overview of removal operations is available on its website, though the government has not addressed this case specifically or explained the chain of custody described in the complaint.

Readers can review ICE’s overview here: https://www.ice.gov/removal-operations

Legal observers say the outcome could ripple well beyond these five people:

• A ruling that bars third-country removals where protection exists might reshape how enforcement agencies plan flights and confirm travel documents.
• A ruling that narrows relief could leave many more people exposed to indirect returns.

The case also tests how courts read U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture and related laws. Those rules aim to stop removal to a place where torture is likely. If an end-run through a third state leads to the same outcome, the interpretation of those protections will be front and center.

Immediate facts and key points

Important: The core allegations and immediate impacts are stark—winning protection in court may not be a guaranteed safeguard if transfer chains are used to reach the same dangerous outcome.

• Five plaintiffs won fear-based relief from U.S. immigration judges.
• They were then placed on a 16-hour flight to Ghana; four were restrained in “straitjackets.”
• On arrival, an ICE officer said they would be transferred onward to Nigeria or Gambia.
• One person has already been sent on to Gambia; four remain in Ghana and face an imminent threat of further removal.

The government could argue that removal to Ghana is lawful if the person has permission to enter Ghana, and that any later travel is outside U.S. control. Advocates counter that the chain was designed to defeat protection, making it a single, continuous removal. The judge’s comments suggest the court will closely examine that chain.

Both sides now await further hearings and a decision on whether deportations to Ghana will be halted while the legal questions are resolved.