Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Third-Country Deportation Policy

Nueva Voz · IA

Lo que debes saber

A three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on September 18, 2026 against the third-country deportation policy of the Donald Trump administration. The decision largely upheld a ruling by a federal court in Massachusetts that had declared the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulation illegal.

What is third-country deportation?

Third-country deportation occurs when a person is sent to a country other than the one where they are a citizen or previously lived. This option can be used when the country of origin refuses to accept them or when the U.S. government reaches agreements with another nation.

The challenged policy allowed immigration authorities to send people to those countries without first informing them of the specific destination. It also did not guarantee them an effective opportunity to explain whether they faced persecution or torture in the place of transfer.

The DHS had argued that the guarantees offered by the receiving governments were sufficient. However, the court concluded that those promises do not substitute for a person’s right to know their destination and present an objection.

What did the appeals court decide?

Judge Seth Aframe wrote the unanimous opinion of the panel. The court noted that the right to challenge a transfer loses value if the person receives no prior notice and no real opportunity to question the destination.

«Facing deportation to a country out of fear of persecution makes little sense if the person does not previously know the intended destination,» wrote Aframe, according to the ruling cited by POLITICO.

The court also rejected the DHS argument that the law allowed a special exception for third-country transfers. The panel concluded that the immigration laws and regulations already establish procedures for evaluating claims based on fear of persecution.

What rights do people have before transfer?

The decision requires that people receive effective notification of the country to which they would be sent. Additionally, they must have a meaningful opportunity to file a claim based on reasonable fear of persecution or torture.

The court found insufficient a notice of approximately 24 hours in cases covered by the policy. The decision does not prevent all third-country deportations, but it does limit transfers carried out without the required procedural safeguards.