US Prepares to Deport Iranian Asylum-Seekers to Central African Republic Under New Deal

The Trump administration is preparing to deport a group of Iranian asylum-seekers and other migrants to the Central African Republic (CAR) under a newly established third-country agreement. The move represents a significant escalation in the government's strategy to remove migrants who have been ordered deported but cannot legally be repatriated to their native countries. The deportation deal was reportedly finalized in May during a US delegation visit to Bangui, the capital of the CAR. Under the arrangement, the African nation has agreed to accept so-called third-country deportees from the United States, establishing a new pipeline for individuals caught in diplomatic and legal limbo. The first flight under this new framework is expected to depart as early as Thursday, carrying a diverse group of individuals facing removal.[1][2]

That initial flight is slated to carry approximately 20 people. Alongside the Iranian nationals, the passenger list reportedly includes migrants from Syria and Afghanistan, as well as a Turkish national who fled political persecution. The inclusion of migrants from multiple conflict zones highlights the broad application of the third-country policy, which is not limited to a single nationality but rather targets individuals whose direct repatriation is blocked by legal or diplomatic hurdles. The inclusion of two Iranian women on the flight manifest has drawn intense legal and humanitarian scrutiny, bringing the stakes of the policy into sharp relief. Both women arrived in the United States in November 2024 and were subsequently detained by immigration authorities.[1][2][5]

During their legal proceedings, the two women applied for asylum and a US immigration judge granted them "withholding of removal." This is a specific and high-bar legal protection issued only when a judge determines there is a greater than 50 percent chance an individual will face torture or persecution if returned to their home country. According to their attorney, Emily Trostle, returning the women to Iran would put their lives in immediate and severe danger. One of the women is a baptized Christian convert, while the other is a pro-democracy activist—both profiles that are heavily targeted by Iranian state security. Because US law explicitly prohibits deporting them back to Iran under these circumstances, the administration is utilizing the CAR agreement to remove them from American soil.[1][2][4][6]

By sending them to a third country, the government avoids technically violating the international non-refoulement principle, which forbids returning refugees to a place where they face severe threats. However, the destination itself has raised profound concerns among human rights observers and legal advocates. The Central African Republic is a chronically unstable nation that has been racked by sectarian violence, armed rebellions, and deep poverty since gaining independence from France in 1960. The country has struggled to maintain basic security outside its capital, making it a highly precarious environment for vulnerable migrants who do not speak the local languages and have no community ties. Sending political dissidents and religious minorities to a nation grappling with its own internal conflicts has sparked outrage among immigration defenders.[1][2][3]

Upon arrival, the deportees are not expected to be immediately repatriated to their home countries or left entirely to their own devices on the streets. Instead, officials briefed on the matter indicate they will initially be held in apartments in Bangui. Ultimately, the agreement could see hundreds of migrants relocated to the country over the coming months. To manage the influx, the International Organization for Migration has reportedly been allocated an $85 million fund to offer post-arrival assistance to migrants landing in the CAR. Despite this funding, the long-term legal status, employment rights, and integration prospects for these individuals remain highly uncertain, leaving them in a precarious state of permanent displacement.[3][4]

The Department of Homeland Security has defended the practice, stating last week that all deportees receive full due process before being placed on a flight. The administration views these third-country agreements as a lawful and necessary mechanism to enforce immigration orders. From the government's perspective, when individuals are ordered removed but diplomatic ties are severed or direct flights are impossible, third-country deals provide the only viable alternative to indefinite detention or releasing the individuals into the US interior. The CAR agreement is not an isolated policy, but rather part of a growing network of transactional deportation deals across the African continent.[2][4]

The US has previously reached similar agreements with nations including Eswatini, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC deal has drawn particular criticism, as the country is currently battling an Ebola outbreak alongside ongoing armed conflict in its eastern provinces. These arrangements typically involve the US providing financial, logistical, or security support to the host nations in exchange for their willingness to absorb the deportees. Immigration defense lawyers and human rights organizations have strongly condemned the deals, describing the agreements as opaque and fundamentally dangerous. Advocates argue that transferring vulnerable dissidents to active conflict zones effectively circumvents the spirit of asylum protections.[1][4]

They contend that while the US may be adhering to the strict letter of the law by not returning migrants to their persecutors, stranding them in impoverished and violent environments is a dereliction of the country's humanitarian obligations. The deportations are unfolding against a highly volatile geopolitical backdrop that has severely limited the administration's options. A three-month-old war between the US, Israel, and Iran has made any direct diplomatic coordination regarding Iranian nationals impossible. With the conflict escalating, the administration's reliance on third-party nations to handle its deportation caseload has accelerated. As the first flight prepares for departure, legal challenges are expected to mount, testing the boundaries of how the US manages asylum-seekers it refuses to keep but legally cannot send home.[2][3][4]