Since 2025, immigrants and advocates have raised alarms about a troubling DHS practice showing up in immigration courts across the United States: filing motions to dismiss or otherwise trying to end cases in ways that can fast-track removal—sometimes with the added threat of deporting people to unexpected third countries they’ve never lived in, traveled to, or had any opportunity to prepare fear-based claims against.
For asylum seekers from places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Somalia, Ukraine or Russia (and many others), the idea of going to a “random” wrong third country adds fear to a high-stakes process. As of mid-2025, the U.S. has entered agreements or arrangements with several nations to accept third-country deportees, including Mexico, El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Rwanda, Eswatini, South Sudan, and Kosovo.
Federal Judge Pushes Back on Third-Country Deportation Practices
On February 25, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a major decision pushing back on third-country deportation practices. They reinforce core protections for people at risk. The court’s ruling focuses on a basic principle. The government cannot bypass fairness and due process when it seeks to remove someone to a country never came up in their immigration case and was unlisted in their removal order.
The decision is especially important for immigrants who fear a sudden transfer, without warning, to a third country. There, they may face persecution, detention, or torture. They may have no community, resources, or legal support.
Court Emphasizes Meaningful Notice Before Third-Country Removal
The court emphasized that people must receive meaningful notice before any third-country removal. They must have a meaningful opportunity to file a protection claim specific to that country. In other words, if the government is going to propose a third country, it can’t be a surprise. A person has to have a real opportunity to explain why removal there would be dangerous and to seek protection.
Ruling Reinforces Due Process for Third-Country Deportations
The ruling reinforced that DHS should not jump to third-country removal if there are other countries identified in the case. It recognized that third-country deportations raise serious due process concerns because fear-based claims are country-specific. Someone may be able to document risk in their home country. However, they may not have any time to gather evidence, locate experts, or even understand the conditions in a newly proposed third country before being placed on a plane.
Protecting Immigrants from Third-Country Deportation
For immigrants navigating asylum or other humanitarian protections, this decision provides an important safeguard. It is a powerful argument for counsel to use when DHS attempts to expedite removal to a third country. It’s also a reminder that if DHS raises any third-country possibility, that detail matters. It must be addressed immediately, in writing, with a clear request for the opportunity to pursue country-specific protections.
If you or a loved one fear deportation to the wrong third country, get legal help right away. (Or DHS is trying to dismiss your immigration court case in a way that could lead to rapid removal.) Call Shepelsky Law Group at 718-769-6352 to book your consultation, or schedule it directly at Shepelskylaw.Cliogrow.com/Book