US Court Rejects Trump's Policy to Deport Immigrants to Third Countries

Washington - Afaq News - An American appeals court rejected a policy adopted by President Donald Trump's administration that allows authorities to rapidly deport immigrants to countries other than their home countries without giving them a chance to express their safety concerns.

In a ruling issued yesterday, Friday, in a case likely to be referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, a panel of three judges from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, largely upheld a ruling issued by a lower court judge in February declaring the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's policy illegal.

The ruling came in a class action lawsuit filed by immigrants who had been issued deportation orders, and the case has become a crucial test of the guarantees of "due process" that the government must provide before deporting individuals to countries with which they have no ties.

The Trump administration entered into a series of agreements that enabled it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, often to Mexico, according to a project concerned with monitoring deportations to third countries managed by the International Refugee Organization and Human Rights First.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling. The administration had previously convinced the Supreme Court twice in the same case to lift a preliminary injunction protecting the migrants' rights related to due process, paving the way for the deportation of eight men to South Sudan.

As part of the resettlement program to a third country, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a policy in March 2025 that allows for the sending of migrants to those countries if immigration authorities receive reliable diplomatic assurances that they will not face persecution or torture there.

The policy stipulated that only limited notice should be given before a migrant could be sent to a third country that had not provided such assurances to the State Department.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, appointed by former Democratic President Joe Biden, struck down this policy, concluding that it did not provide protections for migrants' rights related to due process and could lead to their rapid deportation to unfamiliar and potentially dangerous countries without prior notice.

The Trump administration argued in its appeal that Murphy's order, if upheld, would usurp its authority to execute what could amount to thousands of existing deportation orders to third countries.

However, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Seth Afram, who wrote the panel's opinion issued on Friday, stated that Murphy adopted a "reasonable" interpretation of immigration law that requires giving migrants a "real" opportunity to express any concerns before their deportation.

Afram wrote, "The interpretation proposed by the Department of Homeland Security will deprive a large segment of non-citizens who are sent to third countries without notification of their destination from accessing that protection. We reject adopting such an interpretation."

The body included two judges appointed by Biden, including Afram, and a judge appointed by a Republican president.