First Circuit Halts Third-Country Deportations Over Notice Issues

First Circuit Pauses Third-Country Deportations Amid Notice Concerns

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has placed a temporary halt on third-country deportations, a practice where individuals are sent to countries other than their country of origin. This significant ruling, issued on September 18, 2026, in the case of D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, requires that individuals facing such deportations must receive advance notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge their designated destination. The decision addresses concerns that people were being sent to countries where they had no citizenship or family ties, raising serious legal and safety questions.

The issue came to light through cases like that of Rabbiatu Kuyateh, a Sierra Leonean nurse who had lived in the United States for nearly three decades. Kuyateh was detained during a routine check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in July 2025. Despite her long residency and family responsibilities in the U.S., she was placed on a plane destined for Ghana. Upon arrival, she was then transferred onward to Sierra Leone, a country she knew only from maps. This experience highlights the core of the legal dispute: the lack of sufficient notice and a chance to contest the destination.

The Case of Rabbiatu Kuyateh

Kuyateh’s situation illustrates the human impact of these third-country deportations. Having raised her U.S.-born son and cared for her parents, the sudden transfer disrupted her life and responsibilities. Her onward journey to Sierra Leone further amplified concerns, with advocates describing it as “chain refoulement,” a process where individuals are removed to a place that could expose them to persecution or torture. This case serves as a stark example of how inadequate notice can prevent individuals from raising valid safety objections to their proposed destinations.

Scope of Third-Country Deportations

Kuyateh’s flight was not an isolated incident. Reports indicate that since September 2025, at least nine flights have sent over 100 individuals who were not citizens of Ghana to that country, making it a significant destination for these deportations. More broadly, the U.S. government has reportedly sent over 25,000 people to countries other than their own since January 2025. These transfers have spanned across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Central Asia, affecting individuals who may have had no ties to their new destinations and, in some cases, had already secured protection against return to their home countries.

Legal Protections and Third-Country Transfers

The legal basis for challenging these deportations often involves protections against returning individuals to countries where they face persecution or torture. Such protections, like withholding of removal or those under the Convention Against Torture, generally bar deportation to a country where a specific risk has been established. However, the dispute arises when the government seeks to transfer individuals to a third country. Advocates argue that without adequate notice, individuals cannot effectively challenge a transfer to a country where they might face harm, even if they are protected from returning to their home country.

The First Circuit’s ruling recognized this critical gap, finding the government’s previous practices unlawful due to insufficient advance notice and a lack of meaningful opportunity for individuals to contest their removal destinations. The court’s order has temporarily halted these flights, pending further review.

Government’s Rationale for the Policy

A White House spokeswoman, Lauren Bis, defended the policy, stating that it primarily targets individuals whose home countries refuse to accept them, including those with removal orders who do not wish to return to their native lands. James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, referred to these removals as an “essential public safety tool.” The administration’s stated justification centers on situations where individuals cannot be returned to their home countries, and diplomatic arrangements have been made with other nations to receive them. However, the legal challenges focus on the procedural aspects, specifically the notice provided before a transfer and the ability of an individual to raise safety concerns about the third country.

Diplomatic Arrangements and Future Review

The United States has been actively pursuing diplomatic agreements with numerous countries to facilitate these third-country transfers. Reports suggest arrangements with dozens of countries, backed by significant financial commitments. While these agreements aim to ensure that receiving countries will not deport individuals onward to places where they could face torture or persecution, cases like Kuyateh’s raise questions about the effectiveness of these assurances and the practical application of such policies. The First Circuit’s decision underscores the importance of due process, ensuring that individuals have sufficient time and information to challenge their removal to a third country before being put on a plane. The ongoing review will determine the future of this deportation practice.

Frequently Asked Questions