When asylum seekers flee persecution in their home countries and arrive in the United States seeking protection, they expect their cases to be heard on American soil. Instead, more than 13,000 immigrants have received third-country deportation orders, sending them to nations where they have never lived, sometimes cannot speak the language, and have no family or community ties. This unprecedented use of third-country deportation has left vulnerable people trapped in immigration limbo, uncertain about their futures and stripped of the legal right to work while they wait.
Understanding Third-Country Deportation
Third-country deportation represents a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration policy. Rather than returning asylum seekers to their countries of origin or allowing their claims to proceed through the immigration court system, the government has begun ordering migrants removed to entirely foreign nations. These destinations span the globe, from Central American countries like Honduras and Ecuador to distant African nations such as Uganda.
The legal foundation for this practice rests on bilateral arrangements known as Asylum Cooperative Agreements. The Department of Homeland Security describes these as “lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims.” Under this framework, a person fleeing violence in Venezuela, for example, might be told they will pursue safety in Uganda instead.
Critics argue this approach circumvents the fundamental purpose of asylum law, which is meant to provide protection to those fleeing persecution in their home countries, not to redistribute them to random third-party nations.
The Scale of the Crisis
According to data from the nonprofit organization Mobile Pathways, which advocates for transparency in immigration proceedings, more than 13,000 immigrants living legally in the United States have been hit with these removal orders while awaiting decisions on their asylum claims. The orders target people who had been following the rules, working legally, and participating in immigration proceedings.
A breakdown of the destinations reveals striking patterns:
- Honduras: The single most common destination, with thousands of orders issued
- Ecuador: Hundreds of people ordered to a country many had never visited
- Uganda: A long-haul destination across the Atlantic Ocean
- Nearly 30 other countries: Scattered across Latin America, Africa, and beyond
Despite the flood of orders, the actual number of completed removals remains remarkably small. Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker maintained by Refugees International and Human Rights First, estimates that fewer than 100 people have actually been flown to third countries under this program.
Real People in Limbo
Behind every order is a human story marked by confusion and despair. Consider the case of a Mauritanian man residing in Michigan who was told he would be sent to Uganda, a country on the other side of the African continent. A Cuban woman working at a Chick-fil-A in Texas was arrested after a minor traffic accident and informed she would be removed to Ecuador. An Afghan man who had escaped the Taliban in upstate New York received a removal order for Uganda.
One particularly harrowing case involves a Guatemalan woman from the Indigenous highlands who arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2024 with her four-year-old daughter, seeking asylum after being held captive and repeatedly sexually assaulted by gang members. By the time she appeared in a San Francisco immigration courtroom in December, she had discovered she was pregnant with another child conceived during the assault. Instead of hearing her asylum claim, she watched an ICE attorney request her removal to Ecuador, Honduras, or Uganda, countries she had never heard of before that moment.
“When I think about having to go to those other countries, I panic because I hear they are violent and dangerous,” she said, her eyes filling with tears.
The Legal Mechanism Behind the Orders
The acceleration of third-country deportation orders can be traced to two key developments in 2024. First, Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys were instructed last summer to file motions known as “pretermissions,” which terminate ongoing asylum proceedings and clear the path for immediate removal.
“They’re not saying the person doesn’t have a claim,” explained Sarah Mehta of the American Civil Liberties Union. “They’re just saying, ‘We’re kicking this case completely out of court and we’re going to send that person to another country.'” This procedural maneuver effectively denies asylum seekers their day in court while technically complying with international obligations against returning people to places where they face persecution.
Second, a ruling from the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals in October 2024 expanded the practice significantly. The decision, issued by three judges (two appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and one holdover from the first Trump administration), held that migrants seeking asylum could be removed to any third country where the U.S. State Department determines they would not face persecution or torture. This precedent triggered an aggressive expansion of the policy.
Why So Few Have Actually Been Deported
Despite the volume of orders issued, practical constraints have dramatically limited actual removals. Several factors explain this gap:
Diplomatic Caps
International agreements impose strict numerical limits on how many people can be sent to particular countries. The agreement with Honduras, for instance, allows only 10 deportees per month for 24 months, yet thousands of people have been ordered sent there. These caps create an impossible mathematical mismatch between orders issued and removals that can actually occur.
Language Barriers
Some individuals ordered to Honduras speak no Spanish at all. Recent removal orders have been issued to native speakers of English, Uzbek, and French, among other languages, raising serious questions about the practicality and ethics of relocating people to countries where communication is impossible.
Logistical Challenges
Okello Oryem, Uganda’s minister of state for foreign affairs, noted that no deportees had actually arrived in his country. U.S. authorities may be “doing a cost analysis” and trying to avoid running flights with only a few passengers, he told the Associated Press. “You can’t be doing one, two people at a time. Planeloads,that is the most effective way.”
Legal Challenges
Various legal challenges have created additional obstacles, leaving many cases in indefinite suspension.
The Human Cost of Immigration Limbo
The consequences for those caught in this system are severe. Most affected immigrants have lost permission to work legally, a right they possessed while pursuing their asylum claims. Without legal employment, they cannot support themselves or their families, compounding the psychological burden of uncertainty.
Cassandra Charles, a senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, views this uncertainty as an intentional feature rather than a flaw. “This administration’s goal is to instill fear into people. That’s the primary thing,” she said. The theory among advocates is that the mere threat of removal to a foreign country will push migrants to abandon their cases and agree to “voluntary” return to their home countries, sometimes back to the very dangers they fled.
Signs of Policy Change
In mid-March 2025, top ICE legal officials sent an email to field attorneys within the Department of Homeland Security instructing them to stop filing new motions for third-country removals tied to asylum cases. The email provided no explanation, has not been publicly released, and DHS did not respond to inquiries about whether the halt is permanent.
However, anyone who has already received an order remains subject to it. “But the earlier deportation cases? Those are continuing,” the email essentially confirmed, leaving thousands of people in the same precarious position.
Many immigration lawyers suspect this pause may signal a strategic shift rather than a true retreat. “Right now they haven’t been able to remove that many people,” the ACLU’s Mehta observed. “I do think that will change. They’re in a hiring spree right now. They will have more planes. If they get more agreements, they’ll be able to send more people to more countries.”
Looking Ahead
The third-country deportation experiment represents one of the most consequential changes to U.S. immigration policy in recent memory. With roughly 2 million asylum cases already backlogged in the immigration system, the stakes could not be higher for vulnerable populations seeking protection.
For the 13,000-plus individuals holding these orders, each day brings new uncertainty. Some sit in detention facilities. Others live in communities, unable to work legally, watching for news that might determine whether they remain in the country they hoped would offer them safety or board a flight to an unknown land. As the government continues expanding its enforcement apparatus and negotiating new Asylum Cooperative Agreements, the future for asylum seekers in America has never felt more precarious.