Press Release
Published on September 18, 2026
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a lower court decision holding unlawful the Trump administration’s aggressive third-country removal policy. The lawsuit, D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, challenged the deportation of thousands of noncitizens to countries other than those identified in their immigration proceedings without notice or an opportunity to seek protection. The case arose amid a dramatic expansion of third-country removals targeting noncitizens who could not be removed to their countries of origin. In an increasing number of cases, these were people who could not be deported to their countries of origin because they had shown that it was more likely than not that they would be persecuted or tortured there, and they had been granted orders of protection against removal on that basis. The suit was filed by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), and Human Rights First on behalf of a nationwide class of noncitizens threatened with removal to third countries.
The First Circuit’s decision upholds the district court’s determination that DHS’s third-country removal policy is unlawful and its vacatur of that policy. The ruling also affirms the lower court’s declaration that class members are entitled to meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise protection claims before being deported to places where they face persecution, torture, or other serious harm.
DHS began deporting individuals to countries with which they had no connection and where they often faced grave danger, even though those countries had never been designated during their immigration proceedings. DHS provided little or no advance notice of the third-country removal and no meaningful opportunity for the noncitizen to present evidence that they faced persecution or torture if removed there. The policy also exposed individuals to the risk of chain refoulement—of being sent to a third country that would, in turn, transfer them to the very country from which they won protection from persecution, torture, or other serious harm. DHS has effected third country removals to South Sudan, El Salvador, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Cameroon, and the Central African Republic, among other countries. DHS has also removed thousands of non-Mexicans to Mexico.
The First Circuit’s ruling affirms critical rights for a nationwide class of individuals with final removal orders who have been removed or face removal to countries that were never identified during their immigration proceedings. The First Circuit agreed that DHS’s failure to comply with the law which protects persons from being removed to any country where they face persecution, torture, or death.
The First Circuit’s ruling is effective immediately.
“For over a year, many class members been deported to countries they had never been told they could be removed to, with little or no notice and without a meaningful opportunity to explain the dangers awaiting them there.” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. “The First Circuit clearly held that the government cannot evade protections against persecution and torture by simply changing the deportation destination. The Court recognized that people must have notice of where they are being sent and a meaningful opportunity to raise a fear of persecution or torture before they are removed.”“DHS has used third country removal to terrorize people who have been authorized to live her for decades and to circumvent protections granted by the immigration courts,” said Matt Adams, legal director at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. “The First Circuit’s holding makes clear that DHS’s third country removal program blatantly violates the law.”
“DHS’s third-country removal policy has made a mockery of U.S. law, which prohibits returning people to persecution and torture. People removed under this policy have been dumped without documentation in countries where they have never lived, they have faced abuses including arbitrary detention and physical abuse in those third countries, as well as onward removal to countries from which the United States has granted them protection," said Anwen Hughes, Senior Director of Legal Strategy, Refugee Programs, with Human Rights First.
The First Circuit’s decision is here.
The decision from the District Court is available here.
