Migrants Deported from US Land at Entebbe as Asylum Backlog Grows in Safe Third Country

(ENTEBBE, UGANDA) — U.S. authorities deported the first confirmed group of migrants to Uganda on April 2, 2026, sending 12 individuals on a private charter flight to Entebbe International Airport under a safe third country agreement.

Ugandan authorities received the group after the United States terminated their asylum claims under new pretermission rules. The deportees are of African origin but are not Ugandan nationals.

The Department of Homeland Security defended the removals as part of a broader effort to reduce the asylum backlog. “DHS is using every lawful tool available to address the backlog and abuse of the asylum system. These agreements are lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims,” a DHS spokesperson said on April 2, 2026.

Yasmeen Hibrawi, Public Affairs Counselor, U.S. Embassy in Kampala, said the Ugandan government was cooperating in the transfers. “All deportations are in full cooperation with the government of Uganda. We do not, however, discuss the details of our private diplomatic communications and for privacy reasons, we cannot discuss the particulars to their cases,” Hibrawi said on April 2, 2026.

The arrivals mark an expansion of a U.S. policy that relocates asylum seekers to third-party nations with which they have no personal or cultural ties. Uganda’s role comes under an arrangement formally titled the “Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests.”

That agreement was signed on July 29, 2025, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2025. U.S. officials have used such arrangements as part of a wider deportation strategy during 2025-2026.

Ugandan Foreign Ministry officials confirmed receiving at least 8 individuals whose cases were approved by a U.S. immigration judge. That leaves a gap between the 12 people reported to have arrived on the charter flight and the number publicly confirmed by the ministry.

The policy rests on a new legal mechanism inside the U.S. immigration system. Following the 2025 BIA ruling in Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, immigration judges can dismiss asylum applications before a full hearing if the government intends to remove the person to a safe third country.

That pretermission strategy has become central to the program’s pace. In January 2026 alone, DHS filed over 17,000 motions to pretermit asylum cases to facilitate these removals.

By April 2026, more than 13,000 migrants in the United States had been ordered deported to safe third countries including Uganda, Honduras, and Ecuador. The scale shows how quickly the administration widened the use of bilateral agreements.

Uganda has drawn attention because it already hosts nearly 2 million refugees, the largest population in Africa. Ugandan officials said the country would accept deportees of African origin who do not have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors.

Washington has pursued similar arrangements with Eswatini, Ghana, Rwanda, and South Sudan. In one example cited by officials and policy documents, the United States reportedly paid Eswatini $5.1 million to accept up to 160 individuals.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has framed the policy as part of a wider push for mass removals and third-country agreements. Noem has repeatedly said the administration will “not allow illegal aliens. to terrorize American citizens any longer” and has focused on “restoring the rule of law.”

The Ugandan arrangement adds a new African destination to that network. It also places Uganda at the center of a policy debate that has already spread through U.S. immigration courts, diplomatic channels, and refugee systems.

Uganda Law Society criticized the handling of the deportees in stark terms. The group described them as being “effectively dumped” and subjected to an “undignified, harrowing, and dehumanizing process.”

Those objections reflect wider concerns raised by human rights advocates. They argue migrants are being sent to countries where they do not speak the language and have no support systems.

Some advocates have called the policy a form of “transnational repression.” Their criticism focuses on the distance between the deportees’ lives in the United States and the countries selected to receive them.

The deportees’ immediate future in Uganda remains unsettled. A senior Ugandan official said they would stay in Uganda as a “transition phase for potential onward transmission to other countries.”

No destinations were identified for any onward movement. That leaves open whether Uganda will serve as a final receiving country, a temporary holding point, or a transfer stop for some of the migrants.

The use of safe third country arrangements has become one of the clearest tools in the administration’s effort to cut the asylum backlog without waiting for full merits hearings in every case. By relying on pretermission, the government can redirect cases before judges hear all underlying claims for protection in the United States.

Supporters of the policy inside the administration argue the agreements remain lawful because partner countries have agreed to adjudicate claims. DHS has consistently described them as bilateral arrangements rather than ad hoc removals.

Critics, however, point to the practical conditions facing deportees once they land. In Uganda’s case, the concerns are amplified by the fact that the people who arrived at Entebbe International Airport are not Ugandan nationals and may have no prior connection to the country.

That disconnect lies at the heart of the challenge to the safe third country model. The legal test used by Washington focuses on whether another country will consider a protection request, while opponents focus on whether deportees can live safely and with support once sent there.

Uganda’s acceptance criteria suggest its government is trying to narrow the scope of who can be transferred. By limiting admissions to deportees of African origin who do not have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors, Kampala has drawn lines around the arrangement even as it cooperates.

The public defense from the U.S. Embassy in Kampala also signaled the sensitivity surrounding the deal. Hibrawi’s statement stressed cooperation but stopped short of discussing diplomatic exchanges or personal case details.

That caution has left much of the agreement’s day-to-day operation out of public view. What is public is the legal framework, the flight to Entebbe International Airport, and the fact that the first confirmed group has now arrived.

The Federal Register publication on September 3, 2025 gave formal notice of the U.S.-Uganda arrangement. USCIS and DHS policy announcements during 2025 and 2026 then placed the Uganda deal within a wider system of removal agreements and procedural changes.

For Uganda, the arrivals add a new layer to a country already managing one of the world’s largest refugee populations. For the United States, they show how far the administration has moved toward using third-country transfers to reshape asylum processing.

The April 2 flight also gives a concrete example of what had until now been largely discussed in policy terms. Twelve people arrived, at least 8 were confirmed by the Ugandan Foreign Ministry, and their cases had been redirected through a fast-moving legal process built to bypass full asylum hearings.

Whether more flights will follow was not publicly addressed by officials in the statements released that day. What is clear is that the Uganda transfer is no longer theoretical.

At Entebbe International Airport, the first confirmed group arrived under an agreement designed to move asylum seekers beyond U.S. borders and into another country’s protection system. The legal argument belongs to governments, but the migrants now face the reality Uganda Law Society called an “undignified, harrowing, and dehumanizing process.”