U.S. Signs Third-Country Removal Deal with Central African Republic Amid Level 4 Travel Warning

The United States has reportedly entered into a third-country removal agreement with the Central African Republic (CAR). This development adds CAR to a growing list of nations with which the U.S. has established such arrangements, though the specific terms of these deals often remain undisclosed. As of June 7, 2026, no transfers to CAR have been publicly confirmed. Official U.S. documents detailing who might be sent, the screening processes involved, or the safeguards for custody and return have not been made public.

This type of agreement carries significant legal weight. Third-country removals allow for the transfer of noncitizens to a country other than their country of origin. However, U.S. federal immigration law and regulations place limits on where such removals can occur and what protections must be in place beforehand. Specifically, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 241(b) governs countries of removal. Furthermore, protections such as asylum, withholding of removal under INA Section 241(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) can prevent removal to a particular country if the legal standards are met. The Board of Immigration Appeals has previously held that claims for withholding and CAT protection can be raised concerning a newly identified country of removal.

A Growing Network of Removal Arrangements

Public reports indicate that the Central African Republic is now among at least 11 countries with reported U.S. third-country arrangements where removals have not yet occurred publicly. This suggests a broader operational strategy rather than isolated experiments. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department have not released a standard template for these agreements, nor is there a published rule explaining how notice, consent from the receiving state, or access to legal counsel would function across all cases.

Funding and Operational Links

One aspect of the CAR arrangement that has drawn attention is its reported connection to $85 million in U.S. government funding for International Organization for Migration (IOM) operations in CAR. While this figure has been reported, the U.S. government has not publicly explained it as payment for migrant transfers. Without disclosed terms, this funding remains a reported data point rather than a confirmed contractual condition for removals.

Security Concerns in the Central African Republic

The security situation in CAR presents a complex factor in any removal analysis. The U.S. State Department maintains a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory for the country. This advisory cites ongoing armed conflict, civil unrest, high crime rates, kidnapping, and terrorism. The State Department also notes that the U.S. has a limited ability to provide emergency services to its citizens in CAR due to a reduced diplomatic presence. While these warnings do not automatically prohibit immigration enforcement transfers, they could become relevant in individual protection claims and in legal challenges concerning notice and country conditions.

Transparency and Legal Protections

Details regarding the basic mechanics of these agreements remain scarce. There are no publicly disclosed terms that clarify whether CAR has agreed to accept only its own nationals transiting from the United States, or if it would accept non-CAR nationals removed by U.S. authorities. Information about detention conditions upon arrival, the legal status of individuals after transfer, or whether the receiving country would permit onward deportation is also not publicly available. These omissions are significant because litigation concerning third-country removals often hinges on issues of notice, the opportunity to seek protection, and the government’s designation of the destination country.

Federal regulations do address some aspects of this process. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(f), immigration judges are required to inform respondents about their potential eligibility for relief. Country-specific protection claims might arise late in proceedings if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identifies a new destination after the initial case has progressed. Regulations under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16 through 1208.18 focus on withholding and CAT protections in relation to the country where removal is proposed. If an individual ordered removed to one country is later considered for transfer to another, a new legal analysis may be necessary.

A final removal order does not automatically resolve all questions about the country of removal. If DHS identifies the Central African Republic as a potential destination, legal counsel may need to assess withholding and CAT issues specifically related to CAR.

Navigating Removal Proceedings

No public court filings have confirmed that removals to CAR are currently happening. However, this agreement aligns with a period of increased planning for third-country enforcement. Litigation in this area can move rapidly, particularly when detainees receive short notice before a transfer. Any legal challenge might depend on the specific circuit court, the procedural stage of the case, and whether the individual has already had a chance to contest removal to the newly designated country. Rules can differ among jurisdictions, and emergency stays often depend on the unique facts of each case.

Anyone currently in removal proceedings or with a final removal order should keep copies of their Notice to Appear, immigration judge decisions, Board of Immigration Appeals filings, and any DHS notice that names a destination country. If CAR is named as a destination, it is advisable to consult with an attorney immediately to determine if new fear-based screening or motion practice is available. Official updates on immigration court procedures can be found on the Executive Office for Immigration Review website. Information on asylum and related protections is available through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Individuals facing potential transfer to a third country typically require prompt legal review, as deadlines for stays, motions to reopen, or requests for protection can be very short.

Frequently Asked Questions