Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Fast-Track Third-Country Deportation Policy

More than 25,000 noncitizens have been expelled to third countries during the current administration, a scale of enforcement that a federal appeals court has now ruled requires more due process than a 24-hour notice. In a unanimous 55-page decision issued on September 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely affirmed a lower court's judgment that the Department of Homeland Security cannot deport individuals to nations where they have no ties without providing effective written notice of the destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest the removal based on fear of persecution or torture.[2][4]

The case, D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, centers on guidance issued by DHS in March and July of 2025. That policy allowed immigration officials to execute final removal orders by sending deportees to countries not named in their original proceedings, sometimes with as little as six hours of notice before a flight departed.[4][5]

Under the 2025 framework, DHS relied on "blanket assurances" from receiving nations that they would not persecute or torture the arriving individuals. The administration has secured formal agreements with 35 countries, including Liberia, Ghana, and the Central African Republic, spending nearly $50 million on the deportation agreements to facilitate the transfers.[2][4]

Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe rejected the premise that diplomatic promises can replace individualized screenings. "An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination," Aframe wrote.[2][4]

The panel expressed skepticism regarding the reliability of generalized diplomatic guarantees. Aframe noted that the court had "some difficulty seeing how a receiving country can credibly provide blanket assurances that all removed noncitizens will not be persecuted or tortured there unless it intends to provide them with some sort of affirmative protection against rogue agents and non-state actors."[5]

The ruling does not eliminate the government's statutory authority to conduct third-country deportations. Instead, it mandates a procedural layer before the flight departs. If DHS provides written notice naming the specific country, offers a genuine chance for the individual to raise a fear claim, and the subsequent screening finds against the deportee, the removal can proceed.[4]

In one victory for the administration, the First Circuit vacated a portion of the lower court's ruling that would have dictated the sequence of removal destinations. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had previously ordered that DHS must first attempt to remove individuals to their designated countries or countries of citizenship before resorting to a third country, a requirement the appellate panel removed.[2]

Immigrants' rights advocates, who filed the class-action lawsuit in March 2025, framed the decision as a necessary check on an opaque system. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, stated that for over a year, class members had been deported to unfamiliar nations "with little or no notice and without a meaningful opportunity to explain the dangers awaiting them there."[2][4]

The Department of Homeland Security maintains that the policy remains necessary for functional immigration enforcement. In an emergency application filed earlier in the litigation, the administration argued that "convincing third countries to accept some of the most undesirable aliens requires sensitive diplomacy, which involves negotiation and the balancing of other foreign-policy interests."[5]

The legal battle is expected to continue to the Supreme Court, which previously issued a 6-3 shadow docket ruling in June 2025 that temporarily stayed the district court's injunction and allowed the flights to proceed. DHS General Counsel James Percival indicated on the social media platform X that the administration intends to keep utilizing the pathway, writing, "If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere."[1][2]