RAICES Bulletin: Circuit Court Agrees Third-Country Removal Policy is Unlawful
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that the government's policy of deporting noncitizens to unspecified third countries without adequate notice is unlawful. This decision blocks the fast-tracking of deportations that bypass humanitarian protections, mandating that DHS provide individuals with effective notice and a meaningful chance to contest their removal due to fear of persecution or torture.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that the government’s third-country removal policy is unlawful. This decision prevents DHS from deporting noncitizens to unspecified third countries with little to no notice. DHS must now provide individuals with effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to claim a reasonable fear of persecution or torture before removal.
Rationale: The court ruled the policy violates frameworks implementing the Convention Against Torture. Protections against torture are meaningless unless noncitizens receive prior notice of their destination and a chance to contest it. Therefore, policies allowing removals with 24 hours' notice or less—or no notice based on blanket diplomatic assurances—are unlawful.
RAICES Impact: This ruling prevents imminent harm to many RAICES clients. Legal advocates should identify affected individuals, inform them of the legal shift, and monitor the government for noncompliance. Advocates should prepare for potential federal habeas relief if the government ignores the ruling, and assess clients for harm claims if a new notice policy is implemented.
Community Impact: Although the ruling blocks this policy, fear and confusion will persist within the community due to the administration’s broader anti-immigrant agenda. Under the now-blocked guidance, the administration deported over 25,000 noncitizens to at least 29 third countries. Some individuals faced "chain refoulement," where the third country subsequently returned them to the very countries they originally fled.
Related Legal Battles: In the case D.V.D. v. DHS, a district judge temporarily blocked these removals. This sparked social media attacks from DHS General Counsel James Percival, who threatened retaliation against "judicial activism" and claimed the decision is not in effect. While experts disagree with Percival, DHS’ signaled noncompliance could trigger further litigation, and the agency is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Broader Immigration Strategy: This policy was central to the administration's agenda to fast-track deportations and bypass humanitarian protections. By relying on blanket diplomatic assurances instead of individualized screenings, the administration attempted to strip due process rights. Furthermore, aggressive attacks on federal judges by top DHS officials highlight an ongoing hostility toward legal checks that protect asylum seekers and refugees.
