What Happened to the Migrants Dumped in Panama by the U.S.

(PANAMA) The United States flew 299 third-country nationals to Panama in mid-February 2025 after blocking them from asking for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, a move that sparked legal challenges, diplomatic questions, and months of uncertainty for the people left behind. The deportation to Panama took place across three charter flights between February 12–15, 2025, in what officials in both countries described as an extraordinary, one-time transfer under President Trump.

The migrants—among them citizens of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, Cameroon, Somalia, and Ethiopia—say they repeatedly asked to claim protection but faced asylum denial at the border, including statements from U.S. agents that “asylum is over.”

How the operation unfolded

The operation occurred under a broadened U.S.-Panama Joint Repatriation Program updated on February 2, 2025, to allow Panama to accept people the United States found hard to remove directly to their origin countries. While the broader agreement enabled dozens of charter flights for repatriation cases, this specific deportation to Panama of border crossers from distant regions appears to have happened only once.

By early May, the joint framework had supported 48 flights and removed 1,969 people overall, backed by roughly $14 million in U.S. support for Panama’s deportation costs. But no subsequent transfers of third-country nationals from the U.S. to Panama have been reported since February.

Conditions in U.S. custody and during transport

Migrants’ accounts of their first days in U.S. custody describe harsh conditions and lack of information:

• Held in cold concrete cells
• Confiscated phones
• No access to outside contact or legal counsel
• Some shackled at wrists and ankles
• Told they were being bused or flown to domestic detention centers in Texas, only to find aircraft doors open in Panama City

Several reported a complete lack of information throughout transport, including no notice of the final destination, leaving them frightened and disoriented upon landing.

Panama’s detention and release measures

Panama’s initial response was strict, closed-door detention. Arrivals were held at the Decapolis Hotel in downtown Panama City from February 12–18, confined to rooms except for meals, and their phones (already seized by U.S. agents) were withheld.

Officials told detainees that contact with family, lawyers, or consulates would be possible only if they agreed to depart “voluntarily” under the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) return program.

From the hotel, the group was transferred to the San Vicente migration facility near the Darién Gap, where they remained for about three more weeks. During the hotel period, some held up messages reading “Help Us” from their windows—images that circulated widely and drew attention from rights groups and regional advocates.

Policy context and government positions

The updated U.S.-Panama arrangement was framed to:

• Help Panama repatriate foreigners without status
• In limited cases, receive people expelled by the U.S. who could not be removed elsewhere
• Reduce backlogs of irregular migration through the isthmus
• Manage cases where third-country nationals had no immediate route to removal flights from U.S. soil

Supporters argued the joint approach would discourage unauthorized crossings and disrupt smuggling networks. Critics warned it could lead to fast-track removals that sidestep international protection norms.

Key governmental statements and actions:

• Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino (on March 13) said emergency visas issued after detention were meant to give “necessary slack” so people could leave Panama “on their own terms.” He emphasized those flown in were from “very distant nationalities” who had “no reason to be here.”
• Panama closed the San Vicente camp and released the group in Panama City on March 8, after pressure from civil society and legal action before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
• The state issued 30-day humanitarian permits, with extensions possible up to 90 days, instructing recipients to use that time to depart—either by returning to home countries or finding a third country willing to receive them.

U.S. officials have given limited public explanations beyond noting the joint framework and its funding stream. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains it enforces removal laws and that asylum procedures are accessible, though migrants here report repeated refusals by frontline personnel.

For background on how asylum is supposed to work—including screening for credible fear and access to protection—see the Department of Homeland Security’s guidance on asylum through USCIS.

Lives upended after release

Release from detention brought immediate survival challenges. By the time the camp closed, people found themselves in an unfamiliar city with:

• No money
• Limited Spanish
• Few contacts
• Little realistic prospect of local protection (Panama approved fewer than 1% of asylum cases in 2022)

Many said they feared returning home due to political persecution, ethnic targeting, forced conscription, or armed conflict. One man said bluntly: “gun and kill me here and bury me it is better that way than for me to go back.”

Within ten days of release, outcomes diverged:

1. By March 18, 179 people had signed up for IOM’s assisted voluntary return to home countries.
   • Advocates questioned how voluntary these returns were given weeks of restrictive detention and pressure.
2. About 120 people refused to return, citing credible fears.
   • These individuals began searching for safe destinations, contacting embassies, and seeking charities for basic needs.

Main barriers faced by families and single adults:

• Finding a country that will grant a visa within the short permit window
• Paying for travel without savings or work permission
• Proving identity after phones and documents were seized
• Locating counsel to prepare protection requests abroad

The human toll is heavy. People from conflict zones left home after relatives were arrested or killed, or after threats to journalists, activists, or ethnic minorities. Others fled conscription or punishment for political views. For many, forced return would feel like a death sentence.

Legal and diplomatic questions

Legal concerns:

• Advocates argue denying border crossers the chance to seek protection violates long-standing U.S. and international norms.
• U.S. law says people present in the country—regardless of entry—can ask for asylum and receive a credible fear screening.
• Migrants report agents told them asylum was ended by President Trump and refused to take claims. If accurate, such statements and actions could raise concerns about compliance with the Refugee Convention’s principles.

Diplomatic considerations:

• For Panama, accepting people with no ties risked overburdening resources and provoking domestic backlash.
• For the U.S., the one-time event showcased a rapid removal tool but raised questions about transparency and checks.
• As months passed without another transfer, officials appear to treat the February flights as exceptional rather than a standing channel.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests this episode may influence how countries evaluate future partnerships on removals when origin-country flights are difficult to arrange. Governments may seek flexible tools to manage irregular flows, but those tools carry duties: ensure access to protection for people with fear claims and avoid stranding them in places without realistic paths to safety.

Current status and what’s at stake (as of October 2025)

• The remaining group is still in Panama, trying to build legal routes elsewhere or survive day-to-day while permits lapse.
• People who overstay risk detention or removal from Panama, but few safe doors are open.
• With Panama’s low asylum acceptance rate and limited social support, refugees face stark choices:
  • Attempt new legal pathways abroad
  • Take dangerous irregular routes
  • Remain hidden and at risk

Those who returned through IOM face the consequences they fled. Rights monitors have called for follow-up to ensure returnees are not harmed.

What could change the situation

Three factors will determine next steps:

1. Whether any safe third countries will admit protection seekers from the group on humanitarian or family grounds.
2. Whether Panama will extend humanitarian status beyond 90 days or proceed with removals.
3. Whether the United States will revisit the events that led to fast-track expulsions without proper screening.

Officials in both countries can also take immediate steps that do not require new laws:

• Ensure access to counsel and translation for those still seeking protection options
• Facilitate consular access to replace seized documents
• Allow humanitarian parole or family reunion where ties exist
• Coordinate with trusted NGOs for shelter, food, and medical care during interim periods

The calendar is the enemy for people caught in this case: humanitarian permits expire, savings run out, and health problems worsen. The memory of shackles and cold cells lingers, as does the knowledge that their first stop after a long trek—where they expected a fair hearing—ended with a closed door and a sudden flight.

Whether this episode becomes a footnote or a warning depends on how policymakers handle the weeks and months ahead—and whether those left in limbo finally receive a real chance to be heard.