More than 13,000 asylum seekers in U.S. face deportation orders to third countries, it has been reported
Key Takeaways
- It has been reported that more than 13,000 people seeking asylum in the United States now hold removal orders that would send them to a country other than their own.
- “Third‑country” removal orders mean migrants could be returned to transit or neighboring states rather than their home country; such orders can arise from agreements or administrative policies.
- Affected people include both affirmative asylum applicants (USCIS — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and those in removal proceedings before immigration courts (EOIR — Executive Office for Immigration Review).
- The development raises immediate safety and legal access concerns for migrants and adds complexity to an already large immigration-court backlog that delays adjudication for months or years.
- Anyone facing a third‑country removal order should seek legal counsel promptly; there may be administrative and judicial remedies but timelines can be short.
What was reported
It has been reported that more than 13,000 asylum seekers in the United States have orders for removal to third countries. Third‑country removals are orders directing a person to be deported to a country that is not their country of nationality — typically a place they transited through or a neighboring state that the U.S. considers an option for return. The figure and the circumstances around who issued the orders or under which specific policies they were issued have not been fully detailed in the reporting.
Legal context and terminology
In practical terms, asylum work happens in two tracks: affirmative asylum applications processed by USCIS and defensive claims adjudicated in removal proceedings before EOIR immigration judges. Removal orders can be issued after an immigration judge decision, upon appeal, or via expedited removal and other administrative mechanisms enforced by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). “Third‑country” returns have appeared in different forms over the years — for example through specific bilateral agreements, protocols that push people to neighboring countries, or administrative interpretations of removal authority — and can be legally and politically contested.
Human impact and what this means now
For individuals, a third‑country order can mean being sent to a country where they lack legal status, support networks, or safety — and where access to U.S. asylum procedures may be effectively cut off. Many asylum seekers already face long waits: immigration‑court backlogs often measure in months to years, and delays can complicate the ability to gather evidence, find counsel, or present claims. For lawyers and advocates, the situation raises urgent questions about due process, return agreements, and protections under domestic and international law, including nonrefoulement obligations (the principle against returning someone to persecution).
If you or someone you know is affected, seek immigration legal assistance immediately. Possible options can include administrative motions to reopen or reconsider, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and humanitarian or prosecutorial discretion requests — but available remedies depend on the individual case and deadlines are strict. Local legal aid organizations, accredited representatives, and immigration attorneys can provide case‑specific guidance.
Source: Original Article