A unanimous federal appeals panel ruled Friday that the Department of Homeland Security cannot deport immigrants to countries where they have no ties without first giving them notice and a real chance to object, a decision that hands open-borders advocates a procedural win while leaving the underlying enforcement authority intact.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down a DHS policy that allowed the government to move quickly when sending immigrants to nations other than their home countries. The three-judge panel, in an opinion written by Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, held that deportees must know where they are being sent before the plane takes off, and must have a meaningful opportunity to argue against that destination.
The ruling lands squarely on the administration's expanding use of third-country deportation deals, which now number 35 nations, including the Central African Republic, Liberia, Ghana, and Sierra Leone. DHS had relied on what it called "diplomatic assurances" from receiving governments that deportees would not be mistreated. The court found that those assurances, standing alone, did not satisfy the requirement that individuals be able to challenge a removal destination based on fear of persecution.
The opinion did not hold back about the procedural gap. ABC News reported that Judge Aframe wrote for the panel:
"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."
That language frames the ruling as a procedural safeguard, not a blanket prohibition on third-country removals. The government can still deport people to nations other than their country of origin, it just has to tell them first and let them raise objections.
For the administration, that distinction matters. The enforcement architecture, 35 bilateral deals negotiated in recent months, remains standing. What the court dismantled is the speed at which DHS could execute those removals without giving deportees a hearing on the specific destination.
ABC News had previously interviewed a group of Latin American men who were sent to the Central African Republic. Those men said they did not learn where they were headed until several hours into the flight. One of them, Aristides Fernandez Garcia, described the experience bluntly:
"I feel kidnapped."
Garcia also said:
"They have violated all the rights that exist in life, because we are human beings."
Garcia's account illustrates the gap the court identified. Whatever the merits of removing someone who is in the country illegally, sending that person to a nation he has never set foot in, without telling him until the plane is already airborne, raises a straightforward due-process problem that even supporters of aggressive enforcement should want resolved cleanly.
Savi Arvey, director of policy for refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First, told ABC News that the United States has spent nearly $50 million on deportation agreements. That figure comes from the advocacy group, not from a government audit or independent review, and the methodology behind it is unclear.
Arvey offered a sharper characterization of the policy itself:
"I think the fact that the administration is sending refugees to the most dangerous countries in the world, to countries run by corrupt autocrats where they've been arbitrarily detained and sent back to persecution and torture, shows that the administration has a complete disregard for due process, for international law and for human dignity."
Arvey's language, "corrupt autocrats," "persecution and torture", reflects the framing of an organization that opposes the administration's immigration enforcement broadly. Those characterizations are hers, not findings of the court. But her cost figure, if accurate, does raise a fair question: what is the taxpayer getting for $50 million in deportation deals if the courts keep finding procedural defects in how those deals are carried out?
Several important details remain unresolved. The ruling's geographic reach is unclear, it is not established whether it applies only within the First Circuit's jurisdiction or carries broader force. The administration has not publicly responded to the decision, at least not in any statement captured at the time of the ruling. And the court did not define precisely what "sufficient notice" means in practice, how many hours or days before a flight, what form the notice must take, or how a detainee's objection would be adjudicated.
The case name, docket number, and specific statutes at issue were not identified in the initial reporting. Nor were the other two judges on the panel named beyond Judge Aframe. Those details will matter as the legal fight moves forward, particularly if the administration appeals or seeks to narrow the ruling's scope.
The total number of immigrants deported to third countries under the now-struck-down policy is also unknown. So is the current status of Garcia and the other Latin American men sent to the Central African Republic.
The administration has been right to pursue aggressive deportation of illegal immigrants. Securing 35 bilateral agreements is a significant diplomatic achievement, and the willingness to use unconventional destinations sends a clear deterrent signal. An ICE deportation flight operating out of King County International Airport-Boeing Field in Seattle as far back as August 2025 shows the operational infrastructure has been in place for over a year.
But enforcement that skips basic procedural steps hands its opponents easy wins in court. A unanimous panel, not a divided bench, not a single activist judge, found that DHS was moving people to foreign countries without telling them where they were going. That is the kind of fact pattern that makes even sympathetic judges rule against the government.
The fix is not complicated. Tell deportees where they are being sent. Give them a window to raise objections. Then put them on the plane. The destination deals stay intact. The flights keep running. And the next lawsuit loses its best argument.
When the government cuts corners on process, it does not speed up enforcement, it just gives federal judges a reason to slow it down.
