Immigrants seeking asylum in the United States are facing unexpected deportation orders to countries with which they have no prior connection. This practice, impacting over 13,000 individuals, has left many stuck in a precarious legal situation, unsure of their fate.

Unexpected Deportation Orders

An Afghan man who fled the Taliban found himself facing deportation to Uganda after seeking refuge in upstate New York. Similarly, a Cuban woman working in Texas was informed she would be sent to Ecuador following a minor traffic incident. These cases are not isolated incidents.

Individuals from Mauritania, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador, among others, have received orders to be deported to Honduras, Ecuador, or Uganda. These orders are issued despite the asylum seekers having legal status while their claims were being processed.

Policy Changes and Legal Challenges

The nonprofit group Mobile Pathways, which advocates for transparency in immigration proceedings, reports that these “third-country deportation” orders began to surface after unexplained changes in U.S. policy. While the White House aims to increase immigrant expulsions, few deportations to these third countries have actually occurred.

Immigration lawyers and advocates say this has created a state of “immigration limbo,” where asylum seekers are unable to fully pursue their claims and live in fear of being deported to countries they’ve never seen. Many have lost their legal right to work, exacerbating their hardship.

Fear and Uncertainty

Cassandra Charles, a senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, stated, “This administration’s goal is to instill fear into people. That’s the primary thing.” Advocates believe the fear of deportation to unfamiliar countries may compel migrants to abandon their asylum cases and return home.

In mid-March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials instructed field attorneys to halt the filing of new motions for third-country deportations related to asylum cases. The reason for this halt remains unclear, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not publicly commented on its permanence.

A Woman's Plea

A Guatemalan woman seeking asylum, who had been held captive and sexually assaulted, learned she could be deported to Ecuador, Honduras, or Uganda. “When I arrived in this country, I was filled with hope again and I thanked God for being alive,” she said, fearing reprisal if her identity were revealed. “When I think about having to go to those other countries, I panic because I hear they are violent and dangerous.”

The Legal Framework

ICE attorneys began filing “pretermissions” last summer, motions that end asylum claims and allow for deportation to third countries. According to Sarah Mehta of the American Civil Liberties Union, these motions don’t necessarily deny the validity of an asylum claim, but rather remove the case from consideration in the U.S.

A ruling by the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals in October broadened the scope of these deportations, allowing asylum seekers to be removed to any third country deemed safe by the U.S. State Department.

Limited Deportations and Agreements

While over 13,000 migrants have received deportation orders to “safe third countries,” fewer than 100 are believed to have actually been deported, according to data from Refugees International and Human Rights First. DHS maintains that these agreements are “lawful bilateral arrangements” allowing migrants to seek protection in partner countries.

However, the implementation of these deportations has been complicated by legal challenges, the scope of international agreements, and logistical constraints. Data from Mobile Pathways reveals discrepancies between deportation orders and the capacity of receiving countries, with thousands ordered to Honduras despite a limited agreement allowing only 10 deportees per month.

Ugandan officials have also stated that no asylum seekers ordered to their country have arrived, suggesting potential logistical or policy-related issues. ICE officials may be evaluating the cost-effectiveness of sending flights with only a small number of passengers.