News & Reports
Reports and analysis on torture prevention, OPCAT ratifications, UN treaty body sessions, and human rights documentation, sourced from OHCHR, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Coalition monitoring work.
The Plane Landed in Monrovia at 12:45. By Evening It Was in Malabo.
Six people refused to get off a United States removal flight in Liberia, saying it was not their country and that they would face danger there. They were told they would be flown back to the United States. The same aircraft landed that evening in Equatorial Guinea.
The Rules Say the Country Must Be Named. Two Courts Said So in 1998 and 1999.
Two provisions of the removal regulations require the immigration judge to identify the alternative countries on the record, and to tell a person who fears one of them that he may apply for protection against being sent there. Courts of appeals said the same in 1998 and 1999. In O.C.G.'s hearing no alternative country was identified, and when he raised Mexico himself he was told it could not happen.
A Man With Protection From Guatemala Was Put on a Bus to Mexico. Mexico Sent Him Back to Guatemala.
An immigration judge found he would more likely than not suffer serious harm in Guatemala. Two days later he was removed to Mexico without notice, and Mexico sent him to Guatemala. A federal judge ordered the government to bring him back, and the court has since recorded that the government did.
CGTN America on the Expansion of Third-Country Removals
A Chinese state broadcaster covering removals from the United States to Africa. Carried as commentary, labelled as state media, and relied on for nothing.
What the Removal Figures Show, and What the Government Stopped Publishing
Mass deportation is a claim about scale. It can be tested against the government’s own statistics up to January 2025, when the government stopped publishing them. Removals are rising sharply and may reach a historic high, and nobody outside the government can confirm it.
Why Facilities Holding Transferred People Fall Within OPCAT Monitoring
A facility holding people transferred from another state is a place of detention like any other. In an OPCAT State Party it falls within the National Preventive Mechanism's visiting mandate.
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, arts. 1, 4, 19, 20; Convention against Torture, art. 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 9.
Withholding and CAT Deferral: What the Protection Covers, and What It Does Not
Withholding of removal and deferral under the Convention Against Torture are findings about one named country. Understanding that limit is essential when a transfer to a different country is proposed.
Convention against Torture, art. 3; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)-(3); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16, 208.17, 208.18; Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, § 2242; American Immigration Council, third-country removals fact sheet.
A Lawful Order, Carried Out in a Way the Constitution May Not Permit
In death penalty cases a court may stay an execution because the method would be cruel, without disturbing the sentence. This article is about the second question only: not whether a person may be removed, but how it is being done to them.
Constructive Refoulement: When a Return Recorded as Voluntary Is Not a Free Choice
International law prohibits achieving by pressure what a state may not order directly. Where detention, destitution or indefinite limbo leave a protected person no real alternative to returning, the departure is not voluntary in law.
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens (2014), art. 10(1); UNHCR, Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection; Committee against Torture, general comment on the implementation of article 3; EJIL:Talk!, 'Does international law prohibit constructive refoulement?'; International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 35, no. 4, p. 419.