A federal appeals court ruled that immigrants facing removal to a third country must receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise country-specific safety concerns. The decision does not end third-country deportations, but it changes the process the government must follow.
Imagine being ordered to leave the United States and then learning that you may be sent to a country you have never lived in — without being given a meaningful chance to explain why you could be unsafe there.
That question was at the center of a federal appeals court ruling Friday involving the Trump administration’s policy for sending some immigrants to countries other than their own.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security that the administration’s guidance is unlawful to the extent that it allows third-country removals without effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear-of-persecution or torture claims.
But the ruling does not ban third-country deportations.
That distinction matters for immigrants and families in California because the decision changes the procedural protections the government must provide not the government’s basic ability to remove someone to a third country when the law otherwise allows it.
1. What did the court actually rule?
The case involves immigrants who already had final removal orders and faced being sent to countries that were not previously identified in their removal orders or in writing during their earlier immigration proceedings.
The Department of Homeland Security had adopted guidance allowing the government to move people through a streamlined process for removal to such countries.
The First Circuit rejected that process insofar as it failed to provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to assert fear-based protection claims.
The court’s concern was straightforward: protections against removal to a country where a person fears persecution or torture cannot be meaningfully exercised if the person does not know where the government intends to send them and does not have a meaningful opportunity to raise the claim before removal.
The First Circuit therefore affirmed the core judgment against that part of the government’s guidance.
There was, however, an important limitation.
The district court had also issued declarations concerning the sequence in which the government must pursue possible countries of removal; including whether it must first seek removal to countries designated in a person’s removal order or countries where the person is a national or citizen.
The First Circuit vacated those sequencing declarations because the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to litigate that particular issue.
That means the appellate ruling should not be read as establishing a new rule that the government must always attempt removal to a person’s home country or another previously designated country before considering a third country.
The court’s central holding was narrower and more precise: the government cannot use the challenged streamlined process to remove people to third countries without effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise applicable fear-of-persecution or torture claims.
You can review the case docket and filings for D.V.D. v. DHS, No. 26-1212 through the First Circuit case docket.
2. What is a third-country deportation?
A third-country deportation occurs when the United States removes someone to a country that is not that person’s home country.
For example:
Country A: A person’s country of citizenship
United States: Where the person is being removed from
Country B: A different country that accepts the person
The person could therefore be removed from the United States to a country where they have never lived.
Third-country removals are not inherently unlawful. U.S. immigration law has long provided circumstances under which a person can be removed to a country other than the country of citizenship or another country initially identified in the removal process.
The dispute in this case is about how the government carries out those removals and what protections apply before someone is sent to a new country.
The issue has become increasingly significant as the Trump administration has expanded the use of agreements with other countries to accept people removed from the United States.
Reuters reported Friday that more than 25,000 migrants had been sent to at least 29 third countries under the administration’s policy, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, a project of Refugees International and Human Rights First.
For a plain-language explanation of how the system works, see Parriva’s guide to third-country deportations.
3. What does the ruling change and does it not change?
The ruling changes an important part of the process.
What it means
Notice matters.
People facing removal to a third country must receive effective notice of the intended destination.
The opportunity to raise safety claims matters.
A person must have a meaningful opportunity to raise applicable claims that removal to that country could expose them to persecution or torture.
The government cannot simply shortcut those protections because the destination is a third country.
The First Circuit rejected the administration’s interpretation that would have allowed the challenged streamlined process to operate without those protections.
What it does not mean
The ruling does not mean third-country deportations have been eliminated.
It does not create a blanket prohibition on sending immigrants to countries other than their countries of citizenship.
It also does not give every person facing removal an unrestricted right to choose the country where they will be sent.
And raising a fear of persecution or torture does not automatically mean the person will be allowed to remain in the United States.
The ruling is about the process and protections that must come before a challenged third-country removal, not a blanket declaration that every third-country removal is unlawful.
4. Why is this relevant in California?
The case was decided by the First Circuit, whose jurisdiction does not include California.
But federal immigration enforcement operates throughout California, and third-country removals have already affected people connected to the state.
That makes the practical question for California immigrants less about the geographic boundaries of the First Circuit and more about what the ruling means for federal immigration procedures nationally.
It also comes as California communities continue to deal with changes in immigration enforcement and detention practices.
We recently explained what new ICE arrest rules mean in Los Angeles, including how changes in enforcement can affect people during routine interactions with immigration authorities.
The third-country issue adds another layer: a person’s removal order and the country where the government ultimately intends to send that person may not necessarily be the same.
That makes the destination and the notice given before removal legally significant.
The issue is not limited to one nationality or one California community. The legal protections at issue can matter to any person subject to the challenged third-country removal process who has a qualifying fear-based claim concerning the proposed destination.
5. What happens next?
The legal fight may continue.
Reuters reported that the Trump administration is expected to seek further review, potentially bringing the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case is a separate question.
The case has already reached the Supreme Court during earlier stages of the litigation.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s application to stay a preliminary injunction issued by the federal district court while the appeal proceeded. The order stated that the stay would remain in place pending the First Circuit appeal and, if timely sought, any Supreme Court review.
That history is important because the legal rules surrounding third-country removals have changed during the litigation.
The September 18 First Circuit decision now establishes the appellate court’s position on the core notice and fear-claim issue, while leaving the separate sequencing question unresolved because of standing.
What immigrants and families should know
If someone has a final removal order and is told they may be sent to a country other than the one previously identified in their immigration case, the details matter.
The proposed destination, the notice provided, the timing of that notice and any fear of persecution or torture connected to the destination can all be legally significant.
People facing an actual removal situation should speak with a qualified immigration attorney or an accredited immigration legal-services provider about their individual circumstances.
This article explains the court ruling and is not legal advice.
What the evidence cannot tell us
The September 18 ruling does not tell us:
- How many future third-country removals will be affected.
- How many people will successfully raise fear-of-persecution or torture claims.
- Whether the Supreme Court will agree to review the case.
- Whether DHS will change its procedures in response to the ruling.
- What the ultimate effect will be on the overall number of deportations.
Those questions will depend on subsequent court decisions, government actions and individual cases.
The First Circuit did not say the United States can never deport someone to a third country.
It said the government cannot use the challenged streamlined process to remove people to third countries without effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise applicable fear-of-persecution or torture claims.
The court also vacated the separate sequencing declarations from the lower court because the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue that issue.
For immigrants and families in California, the practical significance is clear: the destination of a removal can matter, and the government cannot make that destination effectively a secret while denying a meaningful opportunity to raise legally protected safety concerns.
