US Expands Third-Country Asylum Deportations

US asylum policy shifts toward third-country removals

The Trump administration has broadened the use of a mechanism that seeks to send some asylum seekers not back to their home countries but to so-called third countries. According to the Associated Press, ICE attorneys in immigration court have been moving to end certain asylum cases through pretermission, a step that clears the way for deportation to a partner country under an existing arrangement. In one case cited by AP, a Guatemalan woman was told in court that she could be sent not to Guatemala but to Ecuador, Honduras or Uganda, even though she had never heard of two of those destinations before.

More than 13,000 removal orders reshape the asylum system

AP, citing data from Mobile Pathways, reported that more than 13,000 migrants have been ordered deported to “safe third countries” after their asylum cases were canceled. More than half of those orders were directed to Honduras, Ecuador or Uganda, while the rest were spread across nearly three dozen additional countries. A removal order does not automatically mean an immediate transfer, but it does shift the applicant out of the normal asylum track in the United States and into a far less predictable process.

BIA ruling in October accelerated third-country deportation orders

The sharp rise in these orders followed an October ruling by the US Board of Immigration Appeals, the body that sets administrative precedent across the immigration court system. AP linked the surge directly to that ruling, which cleared the way for asylum seekers to be removed to any third country where the US State Department determines they would not face persecution or torture. The Justice Department has published Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, a BIA decision addressing the safe-third-country asylum bar and the related asylum cooperative agreement framework.

Actual deportations remain far below the number of court orders

While the court orders now number in the tens of thousands, implementation has been much slower. AP cited Third Country Deportation Watch, run by Refugees International and Human Rights First, as estimating that fewer than 100 people had actually been deported under this pathway at the time of reporting. Legal challenges, flight availability, operational costs and the narrow scope of bilateral agreements have all slowed execution. AP noted, for example, that Honduras’s diplomatic arrangement allows only 10 such deportees per month for 24 months, even though thousands of court orders have already referenced that country.

Honduras and Uganda show the gap between policy and logistics

AP reported that dozens of people ordered to Honduras did not primarily speak Spanish, including native speakers of English, Uzbek and French, raising fresh questions about whether such destinations can function as realistic protection venues. On Uganda, AP initially quoted Foreign Affairs Minister Okello Oryem as saying no deportees had yet arrived and suggesting the US was likely waiting until it could fill flights efficiently. But on April 2, AP separately reported that the first group of 12 deportees from the US had arrived in Uganda, a sign that the third-country strategy is beginning to move from legal theory into operational practice.

March pause did not erase existing third-country cases

AP also reported that in mid-March, top ICE legal officials told field attorneys to stop filing new third-country deportation motions tied to asylum cases. The email, according to AP, gave no reason and was not publicly released. Yet the pause did not unwind earlier cases. Existing orders and already-filed matters continue to move forward, suggesting the administration may have adjusted tactics without abandoning the broader strategy.

DHS defends the policy as a lawful enforcement tool

The Department of Homeland Security told AP that these arrangements are “lawful bilateral arrangements” that allow asylum seekers in the US to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to adjudicate their claims fairly. DHS also said it is using every lawful tool available to address abuse and backlog in the asylum system. AP cited the department as putting the asylum backlog at roughly 2 million cases. Separately, EOIR said in late 2025 that the broader pending caseload in immigration courts had fallen to under 3.75 million after a reduction of more than 447,000 cases since January 2025, underscoring the scale of pressure on the overall system even across different caseload measures.

Why the new deportation model matters

This policy matters because it changes how asylum cases are processed, not just how removals are carried out. It allows the administration to reduce the number of cases fully adjudicated inside the US asylum system, externalize part of the migration burden onto partner countries and raise the cost of uncertainty for applicants who may now face transfer to places where they have no family ties, language access or support networks. Human Rights First and Refugees International have launched Third Country Deportation Watch precisely because the network of such agreements appears to be expanding faster than public transparency around it.

As International Investment experts report, the third-country deportation drive shows how US migration policy is shifting away from a case-by-case asylum lens toward a harder enforcement model built on bilateral deals, procedural case termination and externalized responsibility. For migrants, that means higher legal uncertainty, greater operational risk and a system in which the practical outcome may depend as much on international agreements and flight capacity as on the merits of the original asylum claim.

FAQ

What is a third-country deportation

It is the removal of a person not to their country of nationality or habitual residence, but to another country that has agreed to receive them under a bilateral arrangement. In this context, it applies to asylum seekers whose US cases are ended before a full merits decision.

How many such orders have been issued

AP, citing Mobile Pathways, reported that more than 13,000 people have received removal orders to so-called safe third countries.

Does a court order mean immediate deportation

No. AP and Third Country Deportation Watch indicate that actual deportations have remained far lower, estimated at fewer than 100 at the time of that reporting.

Which countries appear most often in these cases

Honduras, Ecuador and Uganda are the countries cited most frequently in AP’s reporting, accounting for more than half of the documented orders tracked by Mobile Pathways.

Is the policy still active now

Yes. AP reported a March pause on filing new motions in some asylum-linked cases, but existing matters remain active. On April 2, AP also reported the first known group of 12 deportees arriving in Uganda, suggesting the policy is continuing in practice.