\n
<\/p>\n
BOSTON: A US federal appeals court rejected on Friday a policy adopted by President Donald Trump\u2019s administration that allows authorities to rapidly deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a chance to raise safety concerns.<\/p>\n
Ruling in a case that is likely headed to the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld a February decision by a lower-court judge that declared the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s policy unlawful.<\/p>\n
The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed by migrants subject to deportation orders \u200cthat has become \u200ca key test of what due process protections the government \u200bmust \u200cprovide \u2060before removing people \u200bto \u2060countries with which they have no connection.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis decision confirms that due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings,\u201d said Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.<\/p>\n
Under Trump, the administration has entered into a series of agreements that have allowed it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, in many cases Mexico, according \u2060to Third Country Deportation Watch, a project run by Refugees International and \u200cHuman Rights First.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration is expected to appeal. \u200cEarlier in the same case, the administration twice convinced the \u200bSupreme Court to lift a preliminary injunction protecting migrants\u2019 due process \u200crights, clearing the way for eight men to be deported to South Sudan.<\/p>\n
DHS had no \u200cimmediate comment.<\/p>\n
Under the third-country deportation program, DHS adopted a policy in March 2025 that would allow migrants to be sent to such countries if immigration authorities have credible diplomatic assurances they will not be persecuted or tortured there.<\/p>\n
The policy called for only minimal notice before a migrant could be sent to a third country that had \u200cnot given the State Department such assurances.<\/p>\n
Third country deportations <\/strong><\/p>\n US District Judge Brian Murphy, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, set aside the \u2060policy and concluded that \u2060it failed to protect migrants\u2019 due process rights and could lead to their swift deportation to unfamiliar and potentially dangerous countries, without notice.<\/p>\n On appeal, the Trump administration contended that Murphy\u2019s order if left intact would usurp its authority to execute potentially thousands of valid orders of deportation to third countries.<\/p>\n On appeal, the Trump administration contended that Murphy\u2019s order if left intact would usurp its authority to execute potentially thousands of valid orders of deportation to third countries.<\/p>\n But US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, writing for Friday\u2019s panel, said Murphy adopted a \u201csensible\u201d interpretation of the immigration law requiring migrants be given a \u201cmeaningful\u201d chance to raise any concerns before they are deported.<\/p>\n \u201cDHS\u2019s proposed interpretation would deny access to that protection to a substantial swath of noncitizens who are sent to third countries with no notice of their destination,\u201d Aframe wrote. \u201cWe decline to adopt such an interpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n The panel included two Biden appointees, including Aframe, and a judge appointed by a Republican president.<\/p>\n However, \u200bthe 1st Circuit overturned one part of \u200bMurphy\u2019s ruling on procedural grounds. That part of the ruling concerned whether the government must first try to deport migrants to countries they have ties to before sending them to third countries.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n