These are statements about the public record, not about the country. "Investigating" means the Coalition has not located a report or a decision on that point and is still looking. It is not a finding that the thing did not happen.
This page carries no Alert. The Coalition designates a state when it has agreed to receive people removed from the United States. The Bahamas is in this series because it was named as a candidate, not because an agreement has been shown to exist. Its documented position is refusal, stated by the Office of the Prime Minister and never publicly reversed. The Coalition will not designate a state on the strength of a description it cannot corroborate, and says so here rather than leaving the reader to infer it.
The proposal “was reviewed and firmly rejected”. “The Bahamas simply does not have the resources to accommodate such a request.” And: “Since the Prime Minister’s rejection of this proposal, there has been no further engagement or discussions with the Trump transition team or any other entity regarding this matter. The Government of The Bahamas remains committed in its position.”
No title, no date, no parties, no text, no Federal Register entry and no treaty series number. Searching Department of Homeland Security notices from 1 January 2025 for the Bahamas returns three documents, all unrelated. There is no instrument to read because none has been shown to exist.
A monitoring project states that the Bahamas “initially refused to sign” and “then continued to negotiate the terms of an agreement”, citing no source for that sentence. The Prime Minister’s office says there has been “no further engagement”. The Coalition publishes both and records the matter as unresolved.
Because the pressure is documented even where the agreement is not: a pause on immigrant visa issuance to Bahamian nationals from January 2026 and tariffs on Bahamian exports in July 2026. And because what a person would find in the Bahamas, if one were ever sent, is a matter of record: a state party to the Refugee Convention since 1993 with no refugee legislation, and a Convention against Torture ratification whose reservations were drafted to keep the Committee out.
The Coalition’s position. Where a state has agreed to receive people moved against their will, the Coalition holds that it has knowingly facilitated a programme United States federal courts have found punitive, and that the wrong is complete at the moment of agreement. That finding is not made here. On the evidence the Coalition has, the Bahamas refused. This page records the refusal, the pressure applied afterwards, and the protection system that would meet anyone who arrived if the position ever changed.
In late 2024 the incoming United States administration put a proposal to the Bahamas. On Thursday 5 December 2024 the Office of Prime Minister Philip Davis said it had been reviewed and firmly rejected, that the country did not have the resources, and that there had been no further engagement since. That statement is twenty-one months old and has not been re-affirmed. It has also not been withdrawn, and nothing has appeared to contradict it from the Bahamian side.
Arrangement. None established. No title, date, parties, text, entry into force, Federal Register notice or treaty series number. The Coalition looked for each and found none.
Transferred. None recorded. Third Country Deportation Watch, page last updated 12 August 2026, records the position as “Transfers: Unknown” and “No known litigation at this time”. The United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants tracker, last updated July 2026, does not list the Bahamas at all. The Coalition writes that no transfer is recorded and that one tracker records the position as unknown rather than as none.
Categorisation. The same monitoring project lists the Bahamas among states whose arrangements “cannot yet be categorized”, alongside Antigua and Barbuda, Burundi, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana and others.
What has happened instead. Immigrant visa issuance to Bahamian nationals paused from January 2026. Tariffs on Bahamian exports in July 2026. The state absorbed both and no instrument has appeared.
The Bahamas acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol on the same day, 15 September 1993. Thirty-three years later there is no refugee statute.
The United States Department of State’s 2023 report states it in terms: “Access to asylum was informal. There was no legal framework whereby the government could provide protections and safeguards. The lack of refugee legislation complicated UNHCR’s work to assist asylum seekers and refugees.” The 2024 edition repeats the substance in shorter form and drops the reference to appeals: “access to asylum was informal. There was no legal framework whereby the government could provide protections and safeguards. Authorities involved UNHCR in asylum proceedings, but the lack of legislation complicated UNHCR’s work.”
A state party to the Refugee Convention for a third of a century with no legislation implementing it is a finding on its own, and it does not depend on anything the United States is doing.
The Bahamas is one of a small number of places in the refugee agency’s Caribbean operation where the state, not the agency, decides. The agency’s instruction to claimants is unambiguous: “The government of each country is responsible for receiving and processing asylum requests in: Bahamas” and five other jurisdictions; “UNHCR is not involved in the decision-making process, but we may be able to assist you in understanding the procedures”; and “To seek asylum in the Bahamas, please approach the government immigration authorities or the relevant asylum authority to register your claim.”
So the physical answer is: approach the Department of Immigration. There is no named office, no form, no time limit and no published appeal route. A monitoring project describes an ad hoc government determination procedure since 2007 and standard operating procedures establishing a Refugee Administration Unit inside the Department since 2016. The Coalition could not corroborate that Unit from any Bahamian government source; the Department’s own website does not mention it. It is reported here as reported, not as established. No asylum caseload figure was located.
The Carmichael Road Detention Centre exists, the Department of Immigration operates it, and the Department publishes its direct telephone numbers and its email address on its own contact page. That is the hardest single piece of evidence on this page and it is printed in full below.
The governing statute is the Immigration Act. The Coalition could not read it. The Bahamian statute book returned 403 Forbidden to the Act on 11 September 2026, and this page therefore prints no chapter number and describes no detention provision, because a chapter number recalled rather than checked is exactly the kind of detail that turns into a correction later.
There is a second finding in the same place, and it is sharper. The Department of Immigration’s own Legislation page does not publish the Immigration Act. The entire content of that page is a 2015 Act implementing a tax compliance agreement with the United States. The site footer reads Copyright 2023. The authority that detains does not publish the law it detains under.
On conditions, the Coalition is careful about attribution. The Global Detention Project’s country profile records that “Watchdog groups have reported appalling conditions at the country’s sole dedicated migrant detention facility” and that “Undocumented children are detained pending their removal from the country, as are asylum seekers while their claims are being processed”. That organisation is relaying others’ reports rather than making its own finding, and this page does not upgrade it.
Nobody has, and the Bahamas has taken deliberate steps to keep it that way. This is the part of the record where the Bahamas differs most sharply from its neighbours, because the neighbours were simply silent and the Bahamas was explicit.
The Bahamas signed the Convention against Torture on 16 December 2008 and ratified it on 31 May 2018, nine years, five months and fifteen days later. The ratification carried three reservations, and the depositary records them in these words:
“The Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture as provided for in Article 20 of the UNCAT. The Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Convention. The Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas reserves the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in Article 14 of the Convention Against Torture only at the discretion of the Supreme or Appellate Courts, or the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.”
Put that beside the absence of any declaration under article 22 and the position is this. An individual cannot petition the Committee against Torture about the Bahamas. The Committee cannot open a confidential inquiry into the Bahamas on its own motion, because that power was refused by name. And the Bahamas has reserved the right to decide at its own discretion whether a torture victim is compensated at all.
Article 22, individual communications. Not accepted. The Bahamas does not appear in the declarations section of the depositary record.
Article 21, inter-state complaints. Not accepted.
Article 20, confidential inquiry. Expressly refused by reservation, quoted above.
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Not a party. No national preventive mechanism, and none owed.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Signed 4 December 2008, ratified 23 December 2008. First Optional Protocol: not a party.
Ever examined by the Committee against Torture. Never. Zero documents of any kind.
National human rights institution with international accreditation. None.
A caution about the tables. The treaty body database shows article 20 for the Bahamas as a bare dash, which understates the position badly, and that database warns in its own words that declarations and reservations are not reflected in its table. On this row the depositary is the source and the summary table is misleading. The Coalition names that because anyone checking this page against the easier source will find an apparent discrepancy.
The zero was tested before it was trusted. The same query run against the Dominican Republic returns three documents under the Convention against Torture; the same country filter run against the Bahamas without the treaty filter returns fifty-two. The filter works and the zero is real. Computed from the Convention rather than read: ratification on 31 May 2018 brought it into force on 30 June 2018 under article 27(2), making the initial report due on 30 June 2019 under article 19(1), seven years, two months and twelve days overdue as at 11 September 2026. That arithmetic is the Coalition’s own and is flagged as such.
One United Nations process is live, and it is not about torture. The Human Rights Committee issued a list of issues prior to the initial report of the Bahamas on 7 August 2025, and civil society submissions have been filed against it, including a detention-focused submission by the Global Detention Project and a Caribbean migration observatory. The Coalition did not retrieve the text of any of them and does not describe their contents. Because the Bahamas is not a party to the First Optional Protocol, that process is reporting only. No individual petition lies there either.
Which leaves one answer to the question this section asks. In 2023 the United States Department of State recorded: “The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) gained access to detainees at the Carmichael Road Detention Center and the government’s safe house, but access was granted only to administrative spaces, not holding cells.” The only independent monitor that got in was shown the offices. That sentence does not appear in the 2024 edition, and the Coalition records the deletion as a difference between editions rather than as a change on the ground.
The first days
No instrument has been shown to exist, and the Government’s stated position is refusal. If a person is put on a plane to Nassau, the fact of the flight is itself new evidence and the Coalition wants to know about it immediately.
Unlike most of the Eastern Caribbean, the Bahamas runs its own asylum decisions. A claim must be made to the Department of Immigration. There is no form and no published time limit, so put it in writing, keep a copy, and record the date and the name of whoever takes it.
They are printed below, taken from the Department’s own contact page on 11 September 2026. They are the fastest route to establishing whether a named person is held.
There is no office in the Bahamas. usawacab@unhcr.org is the address the agency publishes, and it asks for a name, a telephone number and a country. The agency does not decide Bahamian claims but has had access to the detention centre before.
No article 22 communication, no Optional Protocol petition, and no confidential inquiry. Whatever can be done has to be done in the Bahamas, in the Inter-American system, or before the plane leaves.
Who is reachable in the Bahamas
Mount Royal House. The authority that decides asylum claims and operates the detention centre
Checked 11 September 2026 · Bahamas Immigration Department, Contact Us
The country's sole dedicated immigration detention facility, operated by the Department
Checked 11 September 2026 · Bahamas Immigration Department, Contact Us
Published by the Department on the same page
Checked 11 September 2026 · Bahamas Immigration Department, Contact Us
There is no UNHCR office in the Bahamas. The agency does not decide Bahamian asylum claims but has previously obtained access to the detention centre
Checked 11 September 2026 · UNHCR, About UNHCR Northern and Eastern Caribbean
Investigating. The Bahamas has no internationally accredited national human rights institution. A Parliamentary Human Rights Committee is referred to by a monitoring project; the Coalition did not open the underlying release and prints nothing about its powers or contacts.
Checked 11 September 2026
A staleness marker on the contact block above, because the Coalition would rather flag it than let a reader be surprised by it. The Department of Immigration’s website footer reads Copyright 2023. The details are the currently published ones and were opened on 11 September 2026, but the site has not had its footer touched in about three years. One airport number is printed on the source page with six digits rather than seven; the Coalition has left it out rather than silently correcting it to the number it probably is.
More than usual, and it should be read before anything else on this page is quoted.
The Bahamas said no, in public, and said it firmly. Reviewed and firmly rejected; does not have the resources; no further engagement; remains committed in its position. Any account that treats the Bahamas as a participating state has to deal with that first, and most accounts do not.
The refusal was made against pressure and has not been publicly reversed. Visa issuance paused, tariffs imposed. Whatever else is true, the Bahamas has so far absorbed both without producing an instrument.
The refugee agency was involved and relations were improving. The United States Department of State recorded in 2023 that the agency “reported improved relations with the government regarding asylum cases” and that “Authorities involved UNHCR in asylum proceedings”.
The agency did get into the detention centre. Only to administrative spaces, but partial access is not no access, and several states in this series granted none at all.
The Bahamas ratified the Convention against Torture in 2018 when it did not have to. The reservations are the subject of this page’s sharpest criticism, and the ratification itself was still a voluntary act that many states in the region have not matched.
The prison service has adopted the United Nations minimum rules as policy and opened a juvenile facility with a staff psychologist and psychiatric nursing team. That concerns the Department of Correctional Services and not Carmichael Road, and the Coalition attributes it to the right institution rather than letting it warm up a page about immigration detention.
The Department of Immigration publishes a complaints hotline and a direct email address for the detention centre itself. Many states in this series publish neither.
That any arrangement exists. No title, no date, no parties, no text, no Federal Register entry, no treaty series number.
That negotiations continued after December 2024. A monitoring project says they did and cites nothing. The Prime Minister’s office says they did not. Neither has been tested against a primary source dated after December 2024.
That any person has been transferred from the United States to the Bahamas. Recorded as unknown, not as none.
The Refugee Administration Unit, reported by a monitoring project and not corroborated by any Bahamian source.
The Immigration Act’s chapter number and its detention provisions. The statute book returned 403.
Any asylum caseload figure.
The contents of the Human Rights Committee’s list of issues and of the civil society submissions filed against it.
Whether the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee exists, meets, or has any function.
The Bahamas’ position under the American Convention on Human Rights and before the Inter-American Court. The Organization of American States tables were behind a bot check on 11 September 2026 and the Coalition did not go around it.
The Coalition writes Investigating rather than none found, because the second phrase reads as though a question has been answered when it has only been asked.
Any statement from the Government of the Bahamas dated later than December 2024.
The Immigration Act, read directly.
Any current monitoring report on Carmichael Road. The most recent independent account this page relies on for conditions is relayed at second hand, and the most detailed one describes a visit in 1998.
A verified contact for any Bahamian organisation taking individual cases, and for the litigation page one United States organisation is said to maintain on this facility, which the Coalition saw listed in search results and did not open.
If you can correct anything on this page, the Coalition wants to hear it. The single most useful thing anyone could send is a primary document dated after December 2024 that settles whether talks continued.
Every source relied on above, linked where it can be linked, so it can be read in full rather than through this summary.
The refusal. Office of the Prime Minister of the Bahamas, statement of 5 December 2024, as reported by Al Jazeera. Every quotation from the Government on this page comes from that statement.
The tracker position and the pressure. Third Country Deportation Watch, Bahamas page, last updated 12 August 2026, and its front page, for the transfer position, the categorisation footnote, the visa pause and the tariffs, and for the sentence that the two governments continued to negotiate, which the Coalition reproduces and disputes. United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Third Country Deportations Tracker, last updated July 2026, which does not list the Bahamas.
The asylum system and the detention centre. United States Department of State, 2023 and 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the Bahamas, for access to asylum and for the independent monitoring finding. Global Detention Project, Bahamas country profile, for the governing statute and for conditions relayed from others. Center for Justice and International Law, press release on the Carmichael Road Detention Center dated 3 November 2017, describing a mission of July 1998. Bahamas Immigration Department, Contact Us and Legislation pages, opened 11 September 2026. The Immigration Act itself was unreachable at the Bahamian statute book, which returned 403 Forbidden.
How a claim is made. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Apply for asylum with the government and About UNHCR Northern and Eastern Caribbean.
Treaty status, from the depositary. United Nations Treaty Collection, chapters V-2 and V-5 for the refugee instruments, both acceded to on 15 September 1993; IV-9 for the Convention against Torture, signature 16 December 2008 and ratification 31 May 2018, where the three reservations quoted above appear in the declarations and reservations section and the Bahamas is absent from the section on articles 21 and 22; IV-9-b for the Optional Protocol, to which the Bahamas is not a party; IV-5 for the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is not a party either. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, states accepting contentious jurisdiction.
Compiled 11 September 2026. Where this page summarises a decision or a report, the full document is linked above and should be read in preference to this summary. Where a document could not be opened, this page says so rather than quoting it at second hand as though it had been read. Three changes were made before publication and are recorded because the method requires it. The Coalition’s own working list described the Bahamas as a state that had entered an arrangement; it has not been shown to have entered one, and the designation was removed rather than softened. A draft carried a warning that the Bahamas is not a party to the Refugee Convention; that is the wrong way round, the Bahamas has been a party since 1993 and the state in this group that is party to neither instrument is Grenada. And a passage treating the May 2026 removals of Haitian and other nationals as evidence of the United States programme was cut, because it is Bahamian enforcement against people who arrived by their own route and the two are separate subjects. Corrections to the Coalition.