A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously on Friday that the Department of Homeland Security must provide immigrants with adequate notice before deporting them to nations where they lack ties. The decision invalidates a policy that facilitated the swift removal of migrants to third countries.
Circuit Judge Seth Aframe emphasized the necessity of due process in these cases. He wrote that an individual’s right to challenge a removal based on fears of persecution is meaningless if they are not given prior warning of their destination and a genuine opportunity to contest it.
The ruling permits migrants to legally oppose deportations to countries other than their nation of origin. According to the lawsuit challenging the policy, immigrants were frequently transferred to third nations with minimal or no advance notice, often relying on “diplomatic assurances” from the receiving governments regarding the safety of the deportees.
ABC News previously spoke with a group of Latin American men who were deported to the Central African Republic. They reported that they were not informed of their destination until hours into the flight. One of the men, Aristides Fernandez Garcia, described the experience as feeling like being kidnapped, stating that their fundamental human rights had been violated.
In recent months, the administration has increased its use of third-country deportations after securing formal agreements with 35 nations, including Liberia, Ghana, the Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone. Savi Arvey, the director of policy for refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First, noted that the U.S. has spent approximately $50 million on these deportation agreements.
Arvey criticized the practice, asserting that sending refugees to some of the most dangerous regions under corrupt leadership demonstrates a disregard for due process, international law, and human dignity. She highlighted reports of individuals being arbitrarily detained and returned to persecution and torture.
Rushing people onto planes without telling them where they are going sounds chaotic. The legal team must have had strong evidence for this unanimous ruling.
This reminds me of similar cases in Europe. Are we sure these diplomatic assurances actually prevent torture abroad?
I did not know the US spent fifty million on these agreements. That is a surprising amount of money to sink into this.
Due process matters for everyone. It is good the court stepped in to protect these basic rights.