Understanding Third-Country Removal Policies in the U.S.

The United States has been sending thousands of individuals to third countries as part of its immigration policies. This practice, known as third-country removal, involves transferring migrants to nations other than their country of origin or citizenship. While the intention may be to manage immigration flows, these policies often leave migrants in uncertain situations, facing potential risks and lacking clear legal pathways. Understanding how these removals work, the procedures involved, and the legal challenges they face is important for grasping the current immigration landscape.

What is Third-Country Removal?

Third-country removal is a policy that allows the U.S. government to send individuals to a country other than their home nation. This option is typically considered when sending someone to their country of citizenship is deemed “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” However, this authority does not permit the U.S. to disregard protections against persecution or torture. The policy remains active, even as its legality is being reviewed by the courts.

Between January 2025 and August 2026, the U.S. government reportedly sent over 23,000 people to 26 different third countries. These destinations have included nations like Equatorial Guinea, the Central African Republic, and Liberia. Migrants transferred under this policy may find themselves in countries where they have no existing ties, lack legal status, or face difficulties in establishing a stable future.

How Screening Works Before a Transfer

A critical aspect of the third-country removal process involves screening to determine if a migrant fears persecution or torture in the designated third country. This screening process can be triggered by a migrant expressing such fears. In some cases, the Department of Homeland Security may rely on diplomatic assurances from the receiving government. If these assurances are considered credible by the Department of State, the individual might be removed without further procedures.

When diplomatic assurances are not available or are not deemed credible, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is required to issue a Notice of Removal. This notice specifies the intended third country. The migrant must then actively state their fear of persecution or torture in that country to undergo screening by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The timeframe for responding can be very short, with migrants sometimes given only 24 hours, or even as little as 6 hours in urgent situations, to make their case. Missing these deadlines can have serious consequences for the individual’s future.

Challenges Faced by Deportees in Third Countries

Many countries that receive individuals through third-country removal policies do not offer a clear or realistic path to long-term settlement. Migrants may arrive without legal status, access to an asylum system, or any other means to remain permanently. Some individuals are granted only temporary hospitality, while others may face detention or be pressured to return to the very countries they originally fled.

These situations can lead to severe outcomes, including the separation of families. There is also the risk of “chain refoulement,” where a third country deports an individual back to their country of origin, even if they had valid fears for their safety there. Officials in receiving countries might inform deportees that their permission to stay is limited, increasing the pressure to return home despite safety concerns.

The Global Network of Transfer Agreements

The United States has established agreements with various countries across different regions for third-country removals. These arrangements span Africa, Central America, South America, and even North America. Countries that have been identified in reporting related to these transfers include Cabo Verde, Liberia, and Uganda in Africa and Atlantic routes. In Central America and the Caribbean, destinations have included Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras. South American and North American countries involved have been Ecuador, Paraguay, and Canada.

A notable agreement was made with Liberia, which agreed to accept up to 1,200 third-country deportees from the U.S. in August 2026. This arrangement is part of a wider network of “safe third country” or transfer agreements. It is important to distinguish that the term “safe third country” can refer to two different legal issues: whether a person is barred from seeking asylum because another country is considered safe, and where an existing removal order can be carried out.

Legal Challenges and Ongoing Review

The legality of the third-country removal policy has been challenged in court. In February 2026, a district court initially ruled against the policy, vacating the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal procedures. However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals placed a stay on this judgment while the appeal is ongoing. This means the policy remains in effect during the legal review process.

The appeal addresses both procedural fairness and the safety of receiving countries. It questions whether the government provides migrants with a meaningful opportunity to claim protection and whether the designated third countries can genuinely protect them upon arrival. The legal basis for these removals often involves provisions like 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E)(vii), which outlines the order of countries to consider for removal. A key legal concern is ensuring that the receiving country is indeed safe and that screening processes occur before a migrant is transferred, rather than after they have already entered a precarious situation. Individuals facing a potential transfer may need urgent legal counsel due to the extremely short notice periods involved.

Frequently Asked Questions