The United States deported a small group of migrants who had been granted withholding of removal, a legal shield against return to their home countries, to the Central African Republic (CAR) in early June 2024. Among them was an Iranian pro‑democracy activist who, under U.S. law, could not be sent back to Iran due to a credible risk of persecution. The flight also carried individuals from Armenia and Iraq, landing them in a nation flagged with a Level 4 ‘Do Not Travel’ warning for extreme violence and instability.

Withholding of Removal Bypassed in a Flight to CAR

Immigration lawyer Emily Trostle explained that her client received a court‑ordered withholding of removal, which legally bars deportation to Iran. Yet, according to Trostle, the Department of Homeland Security placed the client on a plane bound for CAR without prior notice, ignoring a request for an asylum officer interview to assess safety concerns. The activist arrived in a country where she has no family, language skills, or legal status,raising questions about the practical meaning of the protection she was granted.

Trump‑Era “Third‑Country” Strategy Extends to One of the World’s Most Dangerous Zones

The deportations are part of a broader policy initiated under the Trump administration to relocate migrants with withholding of removal to “third countries” that are not their nations of origin. As reported,the U.S. has struck agreements with dozens of African and Latin American states, including South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda, many of which face ongoing conflict or weak rule of law. CAR, ranked among the poorest nations globally and plagued by decades of armed strife, now joins that list despite a State Department advsory urging Americans to avoid travel there entirely.

Legal and Humanitarian Concerns Highlighted by Advocacy Groups

Human rights advocates argue that sending protected migrants to a country under a Level 4 travel warning violates both U.S. and international obligations to safeguard individuals from persecution. The report notes that two Iranian women who had converted to Christianity were initially slated for the same deportation but were diverted to Louisiana, where they ultimately were not boarded. This inconsistency underscores the opaque decision‑making processs within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security.

Who Decides the Destination? Lack of Transparency Remains

U.S. officials have not publicly confirmed the specific deportations to CAR, and the legal status awaiting the migrants there is unclear. Trostle said her client learned of the destination only sohrtly before boarding, and requests for a risk assessment were dismissed. The absence of a formal announcement leaves families, lawyers, and watchdog groups in the dark about the fate of those sent to a nation where kidnapping, terrorism, and health threats are commonplace.

What Remains Unclear About Future Returns?

One open question is whether CAR will eventually hand the deportees back to their originnal countries, effectively nullifying the withholding protection. Another is how the U.S. will monitor the well‑being of these individuals once they are in a jurisdiction with limited diplomatic presence. As the report states, the broader strategy risks creating a “legal limbo” where protected migrants are stranded in unsafe environments with no clear path to safety or legal recourse.