United States Third-Country Deportation Ruling Upheld in Boston
UNITED STATES · IMMIGRATION
Key Facts
- —What happened A US appeals court in Boston upheld a ruling that migrants must get notice before third-country deportation.
- —The context The court reviewed 2025 DHS guidance allowing removals with as little as 24 hours notice.
- —Why it matters Under the ruling, Latin American migrants sent to Mexico and the Caribbean must learn their destination and object first.
- —The catch This is a process right only; it grants no new status and people can still be removed.
- —Who it affects Mexico received about 20,000 of more than 25,000 third-country deportees, mostly Cubans, Venezuelans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans.
- —What comes next The government may seek Supreme Court review; the ruling is not yet in effect.
The First Circuit says migrants must be told where they are being sent. They must also get a real chance to say they fear harm there.
A US federal appeals court in Boston has largely upheld a third-country deportation ruling against the Trump administration. On Friday, 18 September 2026, it said migrants need notice and a fair chance to object before such removals.
What the court decided
The case, number 26-1212, is D.V.D. v. US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Judges Lara Montecalvo, Jeffrey Howard and Seth Aframe heard it. Judge Aframe wrote the unanimous opinion.
The panel affirmed a 25 February 2026 judgment by US District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts. He had set aside the DHS guidance on third-country removals as unlawful under federal administrative law.
The core holding is simple. Before any third-country removal, a person must get effective notice and a meaningful chance to claim fear of persecution or torture.
The right to object “means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination.”
The person also needs “a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Judge Aframe wrote. The court said DHS’s reading would deny that protection to “a substantial swath of noncitizens.”
The panel did overturn one part of the judgment. On standing grounds, it dropped the rule that DHS first try the home country or a country the migrant chose.
The policy behind the case
DHS issued the guidance on 30 March 2025. With credible diplomatic assurances from a country, it said, people could be removed “without the need for further procedures.”
The appeals court said the guidance generally allowed only 24 hours of notice or less. A July 2025 memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allowed as little as six hours in some urgent cases.
The Supreme Court paused an earlier injunction in this case in June 2025. The First Circuit also paused Judge Murphy’s February judgment while the appeal was heard.
What the third-country deportation ruling means for Latin American migrants
Latin Americans are among those most affected. The opinion describes a Guatemalan plaintiff removed to Mexico, which then deported him to Guatemala.
CBS News reported that recent flights to Liberia carried people from Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela. Under the ruling, such people must learn the destination in advance and be able to say they fear it.
For a Cuban or Venezuelan facing removal, this means time to object before boarding a plane.
It is a process right, not permission to stay. It grants no new status, and people can still be removed once their fear claim is fairly heard.
What it means for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
Mexico is by far the main receiving country. The Third Country Deportation Watch, run by Refugees International and Human Rights First, counts about 20,000 of more than 25,000 cases there.
Refugees International says Mexico received at least 12,983 non-Mexicans from the US in 2025. Most were Cubans, Venezuelans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans.
The group says Mexico’s migration institute buses most of them south to cities such as Villahermosa and Tapachula. Many Central Americans are then sent on to their home countries.
The tracker says El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Dominica, St Kitts and Nevis, and St Lucia received deportees. Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Grenada, and Antigua and Barbuda have signed agreements.
If the ruling takes effect and survives review, flights to these countries could slow. Each person would need time to receive notice and raise a fear claim first.
Why this matters for expats and investors
Governments in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean have made deals with Washington that depend on this policy. A slower process could change how many people arrive and how much planning and money they need.
For businesses in border cities and southern Mexico, fewer or slower transfers may ease pressure on shelters and local services. For families with mixed immigration status, the extra notice gives more time to find a lawyer.
What is not known
It is not known when the decision will take effect. DHS General Counsel James Percival said the policy “continues, as the First Circuit’s ruling is not currently in effect.”
It is also unclear how many hours of notice will count as effective, since the court set no fixed number. The government has not said publicly whether it will seek Supreme Court review or rewrite the policy.
What to watch next
The first thing to watch is a government petition to the Supreme Court, which could decide the rule for the whole country. The First Circuit’s decision binds courts in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico.
People facing removal should keep their papers in order and speak to an immigration lawyer. The coming months should bring a clearer answer on how much notice migrants will get.
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the First Circuit rule?
It said DHS must give migrants effective notice of a third-country destination and a meaningful chance to raise fear of persecution or torture there.
Does this stop all deportations to third countries?
No. Removals can continue after proper notice and a fair chance to object, and DHS says the ruling is not yet in effect.
Why does it matter for Mexico?
About 20,000 of the more than 25,000 people sent to third countries went to Mexico, according to Third Country Deportation Watch.
Connected Coverage
Guyana Takes In Six Migrants Deported by the United States Under a New Deal
Sources: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit opinion in D.V.D. v. DHS, 18 September 2026; CBS News; ABC News; The Spokesman-Review; Refugees International and Human Rights First’s Third Country Deportation Watch.
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error · Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief