US Federal Appeals Court Limits Trump Admin’s Third-Country Removal Policy

A federal appeals court has ruled that the US government cannot remove people to so-called third countries not named in their removal orders without providing meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise fears of potential persecution or torture.

 

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Friday largely upheld a lower court ruling that restricted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from carrying out such removals without adequate notice. The ruling requires people facing removal to a third country to be informed of their destination and given a meaningful opportunity to raise relevant protection claims.

 

Various federal laws protect people from being removed to countries where they face persecution or could be subjected to torture. The appeals court said those protections would have little practical effect if people facing removal were not told where they were being sent or given a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about the destination.

 

DHS issued guidance permitting such removals in 2025 as part of the Trump administration’s broader immigration enforcement programme. The government subsequently reached agreements with third countries to accept people being removed from the US who are not citizens of those countries.

 

Court Rejects Streamlined Process

 

“An individual’s right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Judge Seth Aframe wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

 

The court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to establish what it described as an exception “from whole cloth” to existing laws requiring fair notice and procedures for people seeking protection from persecution or torture.

 

“The question in this case is not whether, if the government were starting from scratch, it could by statute or regulation lawfully adopt the streamlined process for third-party removals contemplated by the Guidance,” the court said. “The question is whether that process is consistent with the applicable statutes and regulations that presently govern fear-of-persecution claims.”

 

The appeals court therefore largely upheld the lower court’s conclusion that the DHS guidance was unlawful to the extent that it authorised third-country removals without effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise protection claims.

 

Part Of Lower Court Order Vacated

 

The First Circuit did, however, overturn part of the lower court’s order.

 

In its opinion, the appellate panel vacated the district court’s requirement that DHS first seek to remove members of the class to countries they had designated or to countries where they were nationals or citizens.

 

The panel found that the plaintiffs could not pursue their claim that DHS had unlawfully applied the relevant statutes out of order. That finding provided the basis for the lower court’s requirement concerning the order in which countries should be considered for removal.

 

The decision therefore limits the process DHS can use for third-country removals without eliminating the government's ability to carry out such removals altogether. The central requirement affirmed by the appeals court is that people must receive adequate notice of the intended destination and a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture.

 

Case Draws Immigration Debate

 

Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represented the plaintiffs, said the court had rejected the government’s effort to turn third-country removals into a process without adequate notice or an opportunity to raise concerns.

The panel comprised Aframe, Judge Lara Montecalvo and Senior Judge Jeffrey Howard. The class of plaintiffs is represented by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Human Rights First.

 

The case is D.V.D. v. US Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212, US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The opinion was issued on September 18, 2026.