Trump Administration Continues Controversial Third-Country Deportations

United Kingdom - 7dayes News Agency

Trump Administration Continues Controversial Third-Country Deportations

In March of 2025, the Trump administration faced widespread condemnation for its decision to send over two hundred Venezuelans to CECOT, a notoriously brutal mega-prison in El Salvador. This incident highlighted a broader, ongoing practice: the deportation of significant numbers of noncitizens to so-called "third countries." These are nations to which the deportee typically has no connection, often chosen because the individuals have judicial orders preventing their return to their home countries due to a well-founded fear of persecution.

This third-country deportation strategy has persisted, even though many deportees have subsequently been sent back to their home countries after arriving in the third nation. Others remain trapped in detention facilities in these foreign countries. Most recently, the administration reportedly sent nine individuals of various nationalities to Cameroon, none of whom are from Cameroon. These individuals are largely being held in detention there, reportedly under pressure to agree to return to their home countries.

Ahilan Arulanantham, a law professor at U.C.L.A. and faculty co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy, recently discussed the complexities and legality of these practices in an interview. He noted that immigration judges have attempted to curb the administration's use of this third-country loophole by ordering the return of wrongly deported immigrants. Arulanantham elaborated on the legal framework that permits such deportations and how the Supreme Court's apparent reluctance to rein in the administration has strained federal courts.

"Early in Trump’s second term, there was a lot of concern about the degree to which immigration authorities would start removing people from America and sending them to third countries. A year later, how prevalent is this?" he was asked. Arulanantham distinguished between two types of third-country arrangements. The first involves deportations that result in the deportees being imprisoned in a foreign country, such as the cases involving El Salvador and Ghana. While these are deeply troubling, he noted, the total number of such instances is relatively small, likely fewer than a hundred, excluding the El Salvador cases. The second type involves countries like Mexico agreeing to accept individuals not from Mexico and then encouraging them to return to their home countries. Arulanantham stated that deportations of this latter kind, where individuals are essentially "left at sea," have occurred on a massive and unprecedented scale.

Regarding the recent Cameroon deportations, Arulanantham asserted that the administration's arrangement is "clearly illegal for two different reasons." Firstly, the outcome—the imprisonment of these nine individuals in Cameroon, with most reportedly facing detention unless they agree to return home—constitutes punishment without trial, which he deems "unquestionably illegal." Secondly, even in cases not resulting in immediate imprisonment, a subsequent deportation to another country without affording the individual an opportunity to challenge that arrangement in U.S. immigration court is also illegal. U.S. law requires that deportees receive notice of the country to which they are to be removed and an opportunity to raise any claims against that decision in court.

This procedural requirement was central to a class-action lawsuit, *Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.*, which challenged the government's practice of sending people to third countries without notice or a chance to contest the legality of the arrangement. A lower court had ruled this procedure unlawful after a hearing and evidence presentation, mandating that the government provide notice. However, the Supreme Court issued a stay of that order in mid-April without a detailed explanation, allowing the government to continue third-country deportations while the case is pending. Arulanantham believes this stay directly enabled the months of third-country removals that have occurred without individuals having any recourse to challenge the practice's legality.

The legal principle at play is that noncitizens have the right to elect their country of deportation if removal orders are issued. Immigration judges typically ask individuals to designate their preferred country. While the government must attempt to comply, if it cannot for reasons such as a judge barring deportation to a country where torture is feared, the government's options are constrained. The use of third-country deportations without due process, legal experts argue, circumvents these protections and potentially exposes vulnerable individuals to increased risks.

7dayes News Agency