A federal appeals court has ruled that the government must give immigrants a meaningful opportunity to raise safety concerns before deporting them to a country that was not named in their original removal proceedings.
The September 18 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld a lower-court ruling challenging the Trump administration’s third-country deportation procedures. The ruling does not prohibit the government from deporting people to third countries.
Background
The case, D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, involves noncitizens who already have final orders requiring them to leave the United States. Some cannot be returned to their home countries because they have previously established a risk of persecution or torture there.
The government may instead seek to send such a person to another country. But a dispute developed over what procedures apply when that new destination was not identified during the person’s earlier immigration proceedings.
Under DHS guidance adopted in 2025, officials could proceed with some third-country removals without an additional individual safety review when the receiving government had provided diplomatic assurances that deportees would not be persecuted or tortured. In other circumstances, the guidance provided a more limited process for raising a fear claim.
The First Circuit’s opinion concluded that existing immigration law requires effective notice of the intended destination and a meaningful opportunity to claim a reasonable fear of persecution or torture before removal.
Reuters reported that more than 25,000 migrants have been affected by third-country deportations during the administration’s expanded use of the policy.
What Different Sides Are Saying
The Trump administration argues that people covered by the policy already have final removal orders and that additional procedures can make it unnecessarily difficult to carry out those orders. The government also argues that diplomatic assurances from receiving countries can provide sufficient protection in some cases.
Fact-check: The plaintiffs in this case are not arguing that their final removal orders are invalid or that the United States can never deport them to third countries. The dispute concerns what procedures must occur before a particular third-country destination is used.
The migrants challenging the policy argue that conditions can differ dramatically from country to country. Protection from deportation to one country therefore provides little protection if the government can quickly send someone to another place where that person also faces persecution or torture.
The appeals court agreed that the right to protection would have little practical meaning if a person did not know the proposed destination early enough to raise a claim. It upheld the requirement for notice and an opportunity to challenge the destination.
Fact-check: The court did not uphold every part of the lower court’s decision. It rejected a separate ruling concerning the order in which DHS must consider possible destination countries because the named plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing to pursue that particular claim.
Why the Decision Matters
The dispute illustrates a broader tension in immigration enforcement. The executive branch has substantial authority to carry out valid deportation orders, but federal law also prohibits certain removals when a person faces qualifying risks of persecution or torture.
The First Circuit concluded that those protections require a workable procedure before the removal occurs. Its decision leaves the government free to pursue third-country deportations while restricting how quickly some of them can be carried out.
Note on Scope
The ruling addresses procedures for members of the class covered by the lawsuit. It does not create a general right for everyone with a final deportation order to remain in the United States, nor does it prohibit third-country removals. Further appeals are possible, including potential review by the Supreme Court.
Related Links
- First Circuit opinion in D.V.D.
- First Circuit published opinions
- Reuters: Third-country deportation ruling
- Justice Department: D.V.D. case record
- Law360: First Circuit decision
Discussion Questions
- What process should occur before someone is deported to a third country?
- How much notice should a person receive before deportation?
- When should diplomatic assurances from another government be considered reliable?
- Should someone with a final removal order receive another hearing when the destination changes?
- How should courts balance efficient immigration enforcement with protection from persecution or torture?
- Does the destination of a deportation matter as much as the deportation decision itself?
- Who should bear the burden of showing whether a destination is safe?
- What problems could arise from requiring additional reviews before deportations?
- What problems could arise from allowing very rapid third-country deportations?
- Where should the boundary lie between executive authority and judicial review in immigration enforcement?
