Third-country deportations continue as Jamaica receives first U.S. transfer flight

October 13 update: Jamaica receives the first U.S. transfer flight

Associated Press reported that 22 adults, including seven women, arrived from the United States at Kingston’s Norman Manley International Airport on October 13. AP said the group was moved by police-escorted bus to an undisclosed location and that reporters were not given access. The Jamaica Gleaner independently confirmed the first group’s arrival and reported that its members were expected to receive 90-day landing status. The reviewed sources did not publish the passengers’ names, precise nationalities, U.S. immigration histories or person-by-person notice and fear-screening records. [20][21]

Jamaica describes the program as temporary transit before return to a person’s home country or movement to another receiving country. The Gleaner reported that the International Organization for Migration is responsible for accommodation, care and onward movement; arrivals are capped at 25 people every two weeks; and the arrangement is to be suspended if 10 participants seek to remain through asylum or another humanitarian process. The government also says Jamaica will not fund the program and will not accept people with criminal antecedents. Those are publicly stated program conditions, but the full memorandum and current operating procedures remain unpublished, preventing independent comparison of the text with the assurances. [21][24][23]

The opposition People’s National Party renewed demands that the memorandum be tabled in Parliament and asked for details about accommodation, security, public liability and cases in which another country refuses onward entry. The Gleaner reported that Foreign Minister Kamina Johnson Smith said the United States had not agreed to publication. That transparency dispute establishes that important terms are unavailable for public review; it does not by itself prove that the stated safeguards were breached or that every transferred person will face the same outcome. [21][22]

The arrival turns Jamaica’s June agreement into an operational route while the U.S. Supreme Court continues to review the national third-country-removal policy. Al Jazeera connected the flight to the pending due-process challenge, and AP noted that the justices are scheduled to hear the wider case. The flight does not resolve that case or establish whether each of the 22 people received meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise fear of persecution or torture before transfer. [25][20][13][12]

October 8 update: judge orders Ahmed Soliman returned

U.S. District Judge John C. Hinderaker ordered the Department of Homeland Security to facilitate Ahmed Soliman's release from custody in Equatorial Guinea and return to the United States, including arranging necessary travel documents. Reuters and The American Prospect reported that the judge found Soliman's transfer violated Fifth Amendment due process and directed the government to provide a progress update within three days. The government may appeal. [1][2]

Soliman had told an immigration judge that he feared being killed in Egypt because he is gay. Reuters and AP previously reported that he was detained in Equatorial Guinea after video showed police pointing guns at transferred migrants; his lawyers said he was held incommunicado and abused. Those detention allegations remain attributed. Reuters said DHS and Equatorial Guinea did not immediately respond to the new order. [1][3][4]

The order is individual relief and does not cancel the Supreme Court's nationwide interim stay or automatically return everyone sent to a third country. It shows that case-specific due-process challenges can still produce relief when a court finds the government's notice and fear-screening inadequate. [2][11][13]

October 8 update: interviews document conditions after transfers to Africa

Human Rights Watch published an investigation based on interviews with 24 people transferred by the United States to six African countries. Interviewees consistently described being shackled during flights—sometimes for 18 hours or more—and receiving little or no information about their destination. The group said treatment after arrival varied, including reported arbitrary detention, disrupted medical care and onward return to countries some people feared. These are documented interview findings and the organization’s legal conclusions, not court findings covering every transfer. [5][6][13]

The full report says researchers interviewed four LGBT people and received credible information from lawyers and other sources about 10 more LGBT people sent to African countries where they were not citizens. It separately says at least seven people from June and July flights had left the Central African Republic, including three who returned to home countries despite reported fears of persecution or torture. The 14 LGBT cases, seven departures and 24 interviews describe different overlapping groups and are therefore not added together. [6]

AP reported the post-transfer experience of Daniela Fuentes, a Cuban transgender woman sent to the Central African Republic on August 29. Fuentes said she now hides her gender, lacks identification and authorization to work, relies on International Organization for Migration assistance and hopes to seek safety elsewhere. AP’s on-the-ground account and El País’s earlier Spanish interview describe the same person; they are two reports of one case, not two cases. [7][8][5]

October 5–6 update: documented outcomes sharpen the protection question

Reuters documented 40 cases in which LGBT migrants who had received U.S. protection from return to their home countries were nevertheless removed to third countries in Africa that criminalize same-sex relations or that earlier U.S. State Department reporting described as hostile to LGBT people. The protection in many of these cases barred removal to a specific home country; it did not automatically prevent removal everywhere else. That legal distinction is central to the pending Supreme Court case and does not establish that every transfer had the same facts or outcome. [9][13]

The Reuters investigation said some of the 40 people remained in destination countries, some had been repatriated, some were hiding elsewhere and one was no longer in contact with lawyers or relatives. It also cited preliminary government data showing more than 40,000 third-country removals by ICE and Border Patrol since the start of the administration, including about 900 people sent to African countries. Those figures are broader than the 40 LGBT cases and should not be combined. DHS said third-country removals are a public-safety tool and that ICE does not enforce the law based on sexual orientation; spokespeople for the six African destination countries did not respond to Reuters. [9]

Associated Press separately reported that Laotian citizen Phone Chomsavanh was released from a maximum-security prison in Eswatini after more than a year and was traveling onward to Laos. His lawyer said Chomsavanh had completed his U.S. criminal sentence before removal, received little notice of the destination and faced no criminal charge in Eswatini. AP said an Eswatini government spokesperson did not immediately confirm the release. The account is an attributed individual case, not a finding that every third-country deportee was detained without process. [10][13]

September 29 update: the policy can resume for now

The U.S. Supreme Court on September 29 granted the administration's request to pause the lower-court judgment, allowing third-country removals to resume while the case continues. Reuters and AP reported that the three liberal justices would have left the lower-court safeguards in place. The Court scheduled argument for December. [11][12][13]

The brief order is interim. It lifts the operative requirement that affected people receive a meaningful chance to raise fear of persecution or torture before removal, but it does not finally hold the policy lawful. AP reported that the justices will consider the policy's legality, the lower courts' authority to hear the case and the scope of relief they may issue. [12][11]

What the UN-appointed experts said

On September 28, independent experts appointed through the U.N. Human Rights Council called for an immediate halt to U.S. arrangements that send migrants and asylum seekers to countries other than their own. They said at least 23,000 third-country nationals had been transferred to 29 countries and territories and warned of heightened risks including torture, persecution, disappearance, trafficking, homelessness and denial of legal assistance or healthcare. [14][18][17]

The experts said they had contacted the United States and 35 destination governments or territories. Their communication is an expert warning, not a judicial finding against every transfer or destination. Reuters reported that the U.S. mission in Geneva did not immediately comment; Washington has previously said the agreements are lawful and the removals comply with U.S. immigration law. [14][18]

September 30 update: three Colombian deportees seek protection in Spain

El País reported in Spanish that three Colombians transferred by the United States to the Democratic Republic of Congo in April later traveled to Spain and applied for international protection with help from the Spanish Commission for Refugee Aid. The outlet said their Spanish claims remain pending. It reported that U.S. authorities had protected the three from return to Colombia under the Convention Against Torture, making their transfer to Congo—and later movement to Spain—a concrete example of the onward displacement at issue in the wider litigation and U.N. warning. [19][13][14]

El País identified two of the applicants by name and used a pseudonym for the third. Their applications are individual cases, not an adjudication that every third-country transfer is unlawful or that Spain must grant protection. The report adds a verified post-transfer outcome while leaving the Spanish authorities' final decisions unresolved. [19]

What the federal appeals court actually ruled

The September 18 decision in D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security did not prohibit all third-country removals. The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed a lower-court judgment setting aside the challenged DHS guidance. It held that class members must receive effective notice of a proposed destination and a meaningful opportunity to assert a reasonable fear of persecution or torture there. [13][15]

The appeals court rejected one part of the lower court's ruling on standing grounds: it vacated declarations requiring DHS to try certain destination countries in a fixed sequence before using a third country. The administration then asked the Supreme Court to pause the remainder of the judgment during further review, arguing that it needs the policy to carry out valid removal orders. That emergency request means the litigation was not final at this article's publication time. [13][16]

Why published totals differ

The experts' statement used a minimum of 23,000 third-country nationals transferred to 29 destinations. Reuters separately reported a rights-group tracker count above 25,000, also across 29 destinations, with most transfers going to Mexico. The Guardian described about 20,000 bus transfers to Mexico plus more than 5,000 flights elsewhere. Those figures come from different compilations and scopes, so they are preserved rather than added together. [14][16][17]

The Guardian also reported that some transferred people had previously sought protection from the countries they ultimately reached through onward removal. Such individual experiences and the experts' wider concerns require case-specific verification; they do not establish that every person transferred experienced the same harm. [17][13]

Who is affected and what remains unsettled

The policy directly affects people with final removal orders who may be sent to a destination never identified in their immigration proceedings, including people already protected from return to their home countries because of persecution or torture risks. The court record also identifies the danger of chain refoulement, in which a receiving country later sends a person onward to a country from which the United States could not lawfully remove them directly. [13][15]

The Supreme Court has stayed the First Circuit judgment while review continues, so the immediate questions are what procedures DHS will use, how the justices will resolve the case after December argument and whether destination governments can provide durable protection. The Spanish applications reported on September 30 also remain undecided. [11][13][19]

How the sources compare