What happens to a person after they arrive is not a separate question from whether the transfer was lawful. Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture turns on the conditions the person will actually face. Documentation of arrival conditions is therefore evidence going directly to the legal test, which is why monitoring organisations record it.
The material below is reported by the organisations named. ICET has not independently verified individual cases, and where a person’s status or whereabouts is unclear, that is stated rather than filled in.
Scale
The Third Country Deportations Tracker, maintained by the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, recorded more than 19,000 people transferred to at least 25 countries as of June 2026.
Arrangements between states
Human Rights Watch, 23 September 2025 documented arrangements with several African states, reporting capacity figures and financial support: Rwanda, reported as covering up to 250 people with about $7.5 million in United States support; Eswatini, up to 160 people with $5.1 million; and further arrangements involving Ghana, South Sudan and Uganda.
Reported conditions on arrival
- South Sudan. Eight people transferred on 5 July 2025; reported held in shipping containers, with subsequent status and whereabouts unclear.
- Eswatini. Thirty people across four flights between July 2025 and July 2026; reported held at Matsapha Correctional Centre, including in solitary confinement.
- Ghana. More than forty people from September 2025; reported held at a military camp, with restraints reported during transfer.
- Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fifteen people on 17 April 2026; reported held in a hotel under restraint.
- Cameroon. Thirty-six people across four flights between January and May 2026, of whom eight are reported to have held withholding of removal protections.
- El Salvador. More than 252 Venezuelan nationals between March and April 2025; reported held at CECOT, with more than 250 subsequently returned to Venezuela on 18 July 2025.
Two patterns with legal consequences
The Cameroon entry illustrates the limit of country-specific protection: people already found to need protection were transferred elsewhere, because the protection they held spoke to a different country. The El Salvador entry raises the question of chain refoulement directly, since transfer followed by onward return to the country a person left is the situation the whole-chain analysis exists to address.
Where monitoring can help
Detention without charge, without judicial order and without access to counsel engages the receiving state’s obligations independently. Facilities holding transferred people fall within the visiting mandate of a National Preventive Mechanism in any OPCAT State Party, and within the remit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. Practical guidance on detention monitoring is available from the Association for the Prevention of Torture, and our resource directory lists further sources.
For the legal framework, see our explainer on removal to a third country.
This article is published for educational purposes and is not legal advice. The law described here changed several times between 2025 and 2026. Anyone facing removal, or advising someone who is, should consult a qualified immigration lawyer. See also our explainer on removal to a third country.