Third-Country Deportations to Rwanda, Ghana, and South Sudan

What Happened

The Trump administration negotiated a series of agreements with African countries to accept immigrants deported from the United States who are not nationals of those countries. These "third-country deportation" deals involve direct financial payments from the US government:

• Rwanda: Agreed to accept up to 250 deportees under a deal involving approximately $7.5 million in US financial support.
• Eswatini: Accepted up to 160 deportees for $5.1 million, described as funding to "build border and migration management capacity."
• Ghana: Accepted deportees under a deal negotiated without parliamentary approval, sparking domestic constitutional challenges.
• South Sudan: Accepted deportees under a separate agreement.

The deportees sent to these countries have no ties to them — they are nationals of other countries who happened to be in the United States when detained. Upon arrival, they have no legal status, no support network, and limited ability to access asylum procedures or legal representation.

Federal Court Ruling

US District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that the administration's third-country removal policy violates federal immigration law and migrants' constitutional right to due process. The court found that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not authorize deportation of individuals to countries other than their country of nationality or last residence without adequate procedural protections.

International Condemnation

Human Rights Watch published a detailed report in September 2025 finding that the opaque deals violate international human rights law. HRW documented that the agreements lack transparency, provide inadequate protections against refoulement, and place deportees at risk of arbitrary detention and persecution in receiving countries.

Domestic Challenges in Receiving Countries

In Ghana, opposition lawmakers argued the agreement is unconstitutional because President Mahama's administration did not consult parliament. Democracy Hub, a Ghanaian civil society organization, filed a lawsuit alleging the agreement violates Ghana's constitution and international conventions prohibiting deportation to countries where individuals face persecution.

Legal Analysis

Third-country deportation raises fundamental legal concerns:

Non-refoulement: The Refugee Convention (Article 33) and the Convention Against Torture (Article 3) prohibit returning persons to countries where they face persecution or torture. Sending deportees to countries where they have no legal status and may face arbitrary detention violates these principles.

Due process: The ICCPR (Article 13) requires that expulsion decisions be made in accordance with law and provide procedural safeguards. The federal court ruling confirms that the policy fails these requirements under both US and international law.

Asylum rights: Deporting asylum seekers to third countries without assessing their claims denies the right to seek asylum guaranteed under the UDHR Article 14.

Why This Is Classified Severe

• Judicial finding of illegality: A federal judge has ruled the policy violates federal law and constitutional due process.
• Financial coercion of developing nations: Paying countries millions to accept non-nationals creates a transactional deportation system that undermines international refugee protection.
• Non-refoulement risks: Deportees face detention, exploitation, and persecution in countries where they have no legal status or ties.
• Scale and systematization: Multiple agreements with multiple countries indicate a deliberate policy to circumvent immigration law, not isolated incidents.
• Domestic illegality in receiving countries: Challenges in Ghana suggest the agreements may be unconstitutional in the receiving countries as well.

International Law Violations

1. Refugee Convention Article 33 (Non-refoulement): Deportation to countries where individuals may face persecution or where there is no functioning asylum system.
2. ICCPR Article 13: Expulsion without decisions made in accordance with law and adequate procedural safeguards.
3. CAT Article 3: Transfer of persons to countries where they face risks of torture or cruel treatment.
4. UDHR Article 14: Denial of the right to seek and enjoy asylum.

Update: Record Third-Country Flights and a Supreme Court Stay (July–September 2026)

Third-country removals accelerated over the summer. Human Rights First's ICE Flight Monitor recorded 329 removal flights in July 2026, up 14% from June and 59% from July 2025, and a record 18 third-country transfer flights to 10 countries. These included first-ever flights to Belize and Dominica and repeat flights to the Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Ghana, Panama, Paraguay and Sierra Leone. On July 30 alone there were 22 removal flights, the most in a single day since tracking began in 2020. The report notes that some of the people removed were still in ongoing immigration proceedings.

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the administration's emergency request in D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security and set aside, for now, lower-court rulings by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy and the First Circuit. Those rulings required that people facing removal to a third country receive "a meaningful opportunity" to claim they face torture or persecution there (NBC News, UPI). Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented. The Court agreed to hear the case on the merits in December 2026 (France 24, UPI). Solicitor General D. John Sauer called third-country removal "an essential tool to remove certain aliens" (UPI, France 24). Immigration attorney Trina Realmuto said people facing such removals "are once again at immediate risk" (NBC News).

The stay removes, until the Court decides the merits, the procedural safeguard against refoulement that this entry identifies as missing from the African deportation agreements: notice of where a person is being sent, and a chance to object before removal.