US Deploys Third-Country Deportations to African Hubs
US authorities are increasingly removing migrants to third nations like the Central African Republic, bypassing standard asylum protections.
Key points
- US authorities have begun deporting migrants with legal protections to third countries, including the Central African Republic.
- This practice bypasses international bans on refoulement by using destinations that are not the migrants' home countries.
- The administration has reached agreements with at least twelve African nations to facilitate these removals.
A 32-year-old Iranian woman arrived in the Central African Republic in June 2026 after a twelve-hour flight on a chartered plane operated by US immigration authorities. According to Modern Ghana, she was shackled and cuffed throughout the journey and only learned of her destination by checking the navigation screen mid-flight. She had previously received withholding of removal, a legal status that typically prevents return to Iran due to persecution risks, yet she was relocated to a country where the US advises against travel.
This incident illustrates a broader shift in US deportation policy since January 2025. When the administration cannot send individuals back to their home countries due to legal protections or refusal by the origin state, it is increasingly turning to third countries willing to receive them. This practice has effectively become a primary mechanism for circumventing international prohibitions on refoulement, which bars returning people to places where they face danger.
Bypassing International Legal Protections
Under international law, returning individuals to countries where they risk persecution is prohibited. However, US law does not explicitly ban deportation to third countries, a loophole that has been exploited more frequently in recent months. Legal advocates describe this approach as the main tool for getting around the ban on refoulement. In theory, authorities must provide sufficient warning to allow for legal challenges, but reports indicate that migrants are often moved before they can mount effective defenses.
The case of the Iranian activist highlights the disconnect between legal rulings and enforcement actions. Despite a judge’s finding that she faced persecution in Iran, she was arrested twelve days after her release from detention. Her lawyer noted that the rapidity of the process leaves little room for intervention. The destination country, the Central African Republic, is not her home nation, yet it serves as the final point in a complex administrative transfer that bypasses traditional asylum pathways.
Expanding African Transit Agreements
The US has reportedly reached dozens of agreements with third countries, including at least twelve in Africa, to facilitate these removals. Some of these nations have received criticism for their human rights records, raising questions about the safety and dignity of those sent there. The selection of destinations appears to prioritize administrative convenience over the specific vulnerabilities of the individuals involved. This expansion of the network allows the US to process deportations that would otherwise be legally barred within its borders.
Migrants involved in these transfers often report a lack of communication with authorities during the process. In one instance, officers communicated only through gestures, and the individual did not understand the language of the destination. This opacity complicates efforts to verify conditions or provide necessary support. The systemic nature of these operations suggests a deliberate strategy to manage the backlog of asylum cases by relocating individuals to jurisdictions with fewer legal constraints.
Legal Challenges and Future Watchpoints
Legal experts are closely monitoring the implementation of these third-country removals, noting that the speed of execution often outpaces judicial review. The key question going forward is whether courts will intervene to enforce the requirement for adequate notice and the right to challenge the destination choice. Advocates argue that the current practice undermines the integrity of the asylum system and exposes vulnerable populations to heightened risks in unfamiliar and potentially hostile environments.
Observers will watch for further agreements with African nations and any judicial rulings that address the legality of bypassing withholding of removal through third-country transfers. The consistency of this policy, particularly regarding individuals with pending asylum claims, remains a focal point for legal challenges. As the administration continues to prioritize removal, the tension between domestic enforcement goals and international human rights obligations is likely to intensify in the coming months.
