Decisions

E.D. Cal. June 27, 2026 Third country: Equatorial Guinea

An immigration judge had ordered the petitioner removed to Egypt but granted him withholding of removal to Egypt in 2018. In 2026 the government sought to remove him instead to Equatorial Guinea, and placed him on a charter manifest for 28 April 2026. The court recorded that he “had no knowledge of respondents’ intent to remove him to Equatorial Guinea at the time he filed his habeas petition.” The court granted the petition and enjoined the respondent from removing him “to a third country without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings with a hearing before an Immigration Judge.” The record contains the government’s own account of how a removal of this kind is documented. A declaration filed by the Department of Homeland Security states: “His acceptance by Equatorial Guinea and placement on the manifest for this charter serves as the travel document in Petitioner’s removal.” The government relied on a Third Country Removal Agreement signed by the Department of State with the Government of Equatorial Guinea on 23 October 2025, said to contain assurances that people removed there “will not be subjected to persecution or torture,” which the State Department had determined credible. The court recorded that the respondents did not produce a copy of that agreement. The court declined to treat country-level assurances as a substitute for an individual decision, quoting Mbaba v. Perez: reliance on “blanket assurances is no substitute for an individualized determination through a proceeding that is appropriately calibrated to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Uncontested expert evidence before the court described more than two dozen third-country nationals removed by the United States to Equatorial Guinea since November 2025 who had subsequently been sent on to their countries of origin.

Third-country removal Notice Diplomatic assurances Travel documents Convention Against Torture Withholding of removal Chain refoulement Habeas corpus

Caution The agreement on which the removal rested was never produced to the court that was deciding whether the removal was lawful. The assurances are described in the record as the government’s representations and were not the subject of any judicial finding. The record is internally inconsistent on documentation. An earlier order in the same case, summarising a deportation officer’s declaration, states that travel documents for removal to Equatorial Guinea were received on 2 April 2026. That does not sit with the declaration that the manifest serves as the travel document. Nothing published resolves the two accounts, and the Coalition records both. The date above is that of the order adopting the findings and recommendations. The findings and recommendations themselves are dated 5 June 2026.

E.D. Cal. March 26, 2026 833 F. Supp. 3d 1092; 2026 WL 849861. Findings and recommendations 10 March 2026, order adopting them 26 March 2026. Third country: None identified. The injunction is prospective.

A man ordered removed to Vietnam in 1998, released by a federal court in 2000 because there was no reasonable likelihood of removal, and living under an order of supervision since then, was taken into immigration custody in July 2025 on the day he was due to be paroled from a state sentence. He filed a habeas petition himself, without a lawyer, after his request for appointed counsel was refused. He won on every ground he raised. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district judge adopted, an order releasing him immediately on his previous conditions, requiring the government to hand back his identification, passport, work permit and social security card at release, and permanently barring the government from revoking his supervision again without following 8 C.F.R. 241.13(i) and due process. The order also set out, in numbers, what the government must do before it may remove him to any third country: a meaningful opportunity and at least ten days to raise a fear-based claim; if he shows a reasonable fear, the government must move to reopen his removal proceedings; and if he does not, a meaningful opportunity and at least fifteen days to seek reopening himself. On the punitive question the court found that, to the extent the policy deliberately seeks to remove people to countries where they will be imprisoned on arrival, it is punitive and violates due process, following Baltodano v. Bondi. It reached that finding on the petitioner's uncontested allegations, and explained why they were uncontested: the government did not address them, and under Rule 8(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an allegation that is not denied is admitted. The same silence appears in Nguyen v. Scott, Abubaka v. Bondi and Baltodano v. Bondi, where courts recorded that the government argued only that the question was foreclosed and never answered it on the merits. The findings also record the state of D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security as at 10 March 2026: the District of Massachusetts had set the third-country removal policy aside as unlawful on 25 February 2026 and held that class members have a right to meaningful notice before removal to any third country and a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim against it; that judgment was stayed until 12 March 2026 or until the First Circuit ruled on a stay motion; and an appeal was pending.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Revocation of supervision Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing Rule 8(b)(6) admission Self-represented petitioner D.V.D. class action

Caution The punitive finding rests on allegations the government never answered, treated as admitted under Rule 8(b)(6). That is a rule of pleading, not a finding on evidence, and the decision says so. It is a description of what happens when the government declines to contest a claim, and it would carry less weight against a government that had. This is a district court decision and binds only the parties. The petitioner had serious convictions, including a sentence of twenty-five years to life, and still obtained the injunction, because the protection does not depend on the record of the person invoking it. The account of D.V.D. above is the state of that case as the court recorded it on 10 March 2026, not as at today. Anyone relying on it should check where the appeal now stands.

W.D. Wash. March 12, 2026 829 F. Supp. 3d 907; 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51428; 2026 WL 698786 Third country: None identified. No country had agreed to accept him.

A twenty-two year old Egyptian man was ordered released after roughly seventeen months in immigration detention, eight of them after his removal order became final. An immigration judge had ordered him removed but granted withholding of removal to Egypt, which the court described, following the Ninth Circuit, as a powerful indication of the improbability of his foreseeable removal by any objective measure. He held no other citizenship and no country had agreed to take him. The court recorded what brought him to the United States. His father was arrested, detained, tortured and deprived of medical care after a dispute with a member of the Egyptian parliament over corruption in their village, and died. He then campaigned for an opposition candidate and continued that activity at his university, where he was a law student, and was himself arrested, detained and tortured as a political prisoner. The court ordered immediate release, required the government to confirm the release within forty-eight hours, prohibited re-detention without first complying with 8 C.F.R. 241.13(i) and 8 U.S.C. 1231, and prohibited removal to any third country without notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. It set out what compliant notice requires: written notice of the country designated, the statutory basis for the designation, and an affirmative question to the person about whether they fear persecution or harm there, with the answer recorded in writing. It said the government's own policy does not inspire confidence that it can be relied on to provide that process without a court order. The punitive claim was refused, and the reason matters. The court held it did not have a sufficient basis to find the third-country removal programme unconstitutional as a whole, or punitive as applied to this man. The declaration he relied on came from Nguyen v. Scott and concerned pre-1995 Vietnamese immigrants and the resulting removals to South Sudan and Eswatini. He is Egyptian, and offered nothing about a removal practice specific to him or to people like him. The findings in the other cases, the court held, were specific to a particular population and particular destination countries and do not extend to these circumstances. The court also refused two further requests: a hearing before an immigration judge at which the government would have to prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence before any re-detention, and a set of four conditions the petitioner asked to be imposed before re-detention, neither of which it found any authority for.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Withholding of removal CAT Redetention Revocation of supervision Third-country removal Notice Meaningful opportunity Diplomatic assurances Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing Evidence of destination conditions

Caution A district court decision, binding only on the parties. The petitioner won release and the procedural protections, and lost on punishment. That loss is the reason this entry is here. Read alongside Nguyen v. Scott, Abubaka v. Bondi, Hambarsonpour v. Bondi, Baltodano v. Bondi and Pham v. Warden, it shows that the punitive argument has so far turned on evidence about the destination rather than on the doctrine. Where a court has been shown what happens to people on arrival in a named country, it has found the practice punitive. Where it has not, it has declined, and has said the earlier findings were tied to a particular population and particular destinations. Judge Lasnik refused the same claim in Baltodano in November 2025 for want of that evidence and granted it in December once the evidence was supplied. The commercial reporter carried a positive signal on this decision as of September 2026.

E.D. Cal. February 25, 2026 Investigating. No reporter citation established. Third country: No third country was ever identified by the government. The injunction runs against removal to any of them without a fear hearing first.

Sam Sarfarzi-Esfahari had a final order of removal to Iran dating from 8 October 2004, deferral of removal under the Convention against Torture, and had been living under an Order of Supervision. He was re-detained. The court held that re-detaining him under the written policy he challenged violated due process, granted the petition, and ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days at which the government would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was a flight risk or a danger, failing which he was to be released. It separately barred the government from removing him to any third country without first giving him an individualised opportunity to say that he feared that country. On the question whether a challenge to a written policy is ripe before any particular third country has been named, the court held that it is, quoting the Ninth Circuit: where the harm alleged is directly traceable to a written policy there is an implicit likelihood of its repetition in the immediate future.

Third-country removal CAT deferral CAT Order of supervision Redetention Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Notice Due process Standing Ripeness Bond hearing Burden of proof Compliance with regulations ICE policy of 9 July 2025

Caution A district court decision. It binds the parties to it and nobody else. The relief has two halves and they are not the same: the detention half was granted in a narrower form than the magistrate judge had recommended, because the district judge ordered a hearing rather than immediate release. Note also the date. A document of 26 January 2026 in this case is findings and recommendations by a magistrate judge, which is a proposal and not an order. The operative decision is the order of 25 February 2026 adopting it in part. Citing the January date as the grant of relief would be wrong.

W.D. Wash. February 11, 2026 826 F. Supp. 3d 1282; 2026 WL 381163 Third country: Uganda, by notice of intent September 2025. Requests later sent to Denmark, Norway and Sweden, with no reply.

A Russian man who arrived at a port of entry and was detained in May 2024 sought asylum on the ground that he feared persecution in Russia for opposing corruption. An immigration judge found he had a well-founded fear of future persecution by the Russian government and granted withholding of removal, recording that but for the presumption of ineligibility required by the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule she would have granted asylum outright. The government appealed, never filed a brief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal in June 2025. The government then kept him in detention while it looked for a third country. The court ordered his release within one day. Removal to Russia was barred by the immigration judge's order, and the government did not address the point in its brief at all. Its own declaration showed it had served him with a notice of intent to remove him to Uganda in September 2025, had then asked him to complete forms for the countries he had named, had not sent those requests to Denmark, Norway and Sweden until January 2026, and had received no reply from any of them. The court permanently barred removal to any third country without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings with a hearing before an immigration judge. It set out the 9 July 2025 ICE memorandum in its own words, including the provision that where the Department of State believes diplomatic assurances credible, a person "may be removed without the need for further procedures." It recorded that the government itself accepts that courts in the district have found due process requires more than that policy, and it quoted the observation from Nguyen v. Scott that it would be impossible to comply both with Ninth Circuit precedent and the policy. It also held that the Supreme Court's stay in the D.V.D. class action does not bar an individual habeas petition, since it is not clear whether the stay rested on jurisdiction or on the merits, and one of the government's main arguments there concerned the power to grant class-wide relief, which has no bearing on individual cases. The punitive claim was refused, without prejudice. The court accepted that there is extensive evidence across multiple cases that the government is carrying out some third-country removals that are unconstitutionally punitive. But the law of permanent injunctions did not let it infer from those cases that everyone facing third-country removal is likely to suffer the same harm. It gave its reasons on these facts: this petitioner has no criminal record, and the countries the government had actually approached were Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Withholding of removal Political persecution Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Diplomatic assurances Unconstitutional punishment D.V.D. class action Effect of the Supreme Court stay

Caution The petitioner won release and the notice protections, and lost on punishment. That loss is the reason this entry is here. Read with Saadhom v. Bondi and with the two-stage sequence in Baltodano v. Bondi, it shows what the punitive finding has so far depended on. It is not a doctrinal dispute. Every court to consider it has accepted that some of these removals are punitive. What divides the outcomes is whether the person before the court was shown to be at risk of that particular fate, which has turned on who they are and where the government was actually trying to send them. Here the court pointed to a petitioner with no criminal record and to proposed destinations in northern Europe. The refusal was without prejudice, so it decides nothing for the future if the destination changes. The Uganda notice recorded in this decision is a court record of a proposed destination, not a finding about conditions there. A district court decision, binding only on the parties.

W.D. Wash. February 6, 2026 824 F. Supp. 3d 1124; 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25338 Third country: Mexico proposed; twenty-four countries approached

A Venezuelan man granted withholding of removal to Venezuela under the Convention against Torture was detained eleven months while ICE approached twenty-four countries for acceptance. Five replied and all five refused. The court ordered his release under Zadvydas, holding there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and enjoined his removal to any third country without meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard. It held that the ICE memorandum of 9 July 2025 falls far short of due process, noting with alarm that the policy permits removal with no further procedure at all where the Department of State credits a diplomatic assurance, and that ICE will not affirmatively ask whether the person fears the country of removal.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Third-country removal Notice Meaningful opportunity CAT Withholding of removal Diplomatic assurances Unconstitutional punishment

Caution The separate claim that third-country removal is itself unconstitutional punishment was denied without prejudice on the record before the court, not rejected as a theory. The court recorded that the petitioner did not substantiate his allegations but that the government did not deny them, and quoted the finding that courts in this district and across the country have recognised that the government is intentionally removing individuals to countries where they will be imprisoned. It distinguished the cases so finding as specific to a particular population and particular destination countries.

W.D. Wash. February 3, 2026 818 F. Supp. 3d 1235; 2026 WL 408098 Third country: None identified. The government was seeking removal to Vietnam.

A lawful permanent resident admitted in March 1995, ordered removed to Vietnam in March 2008 and released on an order of supervision in April 2009 because the government could not obtain travel documents, was re-detained in June 2025. The court ordered his immediate release. It recorded that the government had failed to remove him in almost eighteen years, that seven months after re-detaining him it had still not sent a travel document request to Vietnam, and that its declaration described how the process works in general but said nothing about how it would work in his case. On the reasons given for re-detaining him the court was blunt. The government said he was a threat to public safety. His most recent conviction was six years earlier, and the court called it incomprehensible that immigration authorities would decide six years later that his re-detention was warranted on that basis. The government also said he could be removed quickly. Seven months without a travel document request made that justification implausible. On the process used, the court found no document supporting the claim that notice was given at re-detention, no mention of the required informal interview at that time, and a corrected revocation letter served more than two months later, which could in no way be deemed timely. The court then went further than the regulations. Even assuming full compliance with them, it held, those limited procedures do not provide the process due under the Fifth Amendment, following E.A.T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316. It ordered that the government may not re-detain him without first giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard before an immigration judge. The government argued the third-country claims were not ripe because it was trying to remove him to Vietnam. The court rejected that. Little in the government's own materials suggested Vietnam was likely to issue travel documents, and that, taken with the policy itself and what the court described as the recent third-country removals of hundreds of immigrants, gave rise to an imminent threat. On the merits the court found no basis to deviate from Baltodano, Abubaka and Nguyen v. Scott, and ordered that he not be removed to any country other than Vietnam without notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond in reopened removal proceedings before an immigration judge, or to any country where he is likely to face imprisonment or harm. The government offered no substantive response at all to the claim that the programme is punitive.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Redetention Revocation of supervision Ripeness Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing Government silence on the merits

Caution A district court decision, binding only on the parties, and decided by a magistrate judge. Two features are worth holding onto. First, the government again offered no substantive answer to the punitive claim. That silence now appears in Nguyen v. Scott, Abubaka v. Bondi, Baltodano v. Bondi, Pham v. Warden and this case. In Pham a court treated the equivalent silence as an admission under Rule 8(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, courts in this district do not agree about re-detention. This court ordered that there be no re-detention without a hearing before an immigration judge. Five weeks later, in Saadhom v. Bondi, another judge of the same court refused that exact request, holding she could not conclude that due process requires a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge in every case. Both decisions stand. The punitive analysis this decision follows originates in Nguyen v. Scott, decided at the preliminary injunction stage on 21 August 2025 and voluntarily dismissed by its petitioner the following month after an agreement between the parties, so it never reached a merits decision. That does not make the findings wrong, and five courts have now adopted them, but anyone relying on this line should know where it begins. The court also recorded, in a footnote, that the government's third-country removal policy was never provided to it in this case. It worked from the text set out in Nguyen v. Scott.

W.D. Wash. December 23, 2025 817 F. Supp. 3d 1102; 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265398 Third country: Mauritania and then Uganda, by successive statements of intent. Neither was ever pursued to the point of a travel document.

An Egyptian man was ordered released after two hundred and twenty-five days in immigration detention. An immigration judge had denied his asylum claim and ordered him removed to Egypt, but granted withholding of removal under the Convention against Torture, which meant a finding that if returned he would more likely than not be tortured. Both sides waived appeal. He has no citizenship or significant ties to any other country, no travel document had been obtained for anywhere, and no country had been identified as willing to take him. On detention the government offered no response at all. It conceded the six month period had passed, then ignored the burden that shifts to it. The court traced what the government had actually done. In May 2025 an officer told him of an intent to attempt removal to Mauritania. A consular request in June was unsuccessful. By September that plan had apparently been abandoned, because on 2 September, in the final days of the ninety day removal period, he was served with a notice of intent to remove him to Uganda. There was no evidence that any step was ever taken towards Uganda: no travel document sought, no interest shown by Uganda, no communication with Uganda about him at all, and Uganda was not among the consulates contacted. Then on 15 December, thirteen days after this petition was filed, he was handed a Mauritanian travel document application. The court said the government cannot overcome a pending petition by handing over an application and making a request to headquarters it could have made months earlier. The court rejected the argument that he lacked standing to challenge third-country removal. Standing was obvious, because the government conceded it was pursuing his removal to third countries. It added that the government's own assertion that he "has not independently raised fear in response to a notice of removal to Uganda" showed he had already been injured, because due process requires that a person be asked whether they fear the destination rather than left to volunteer it. It also rejected the argument that his membership of the D.V.D. class barred individual relief. The order sets out the 9 July 2025 ICE memorandum in detail, and it is the fullest account of that policy in this register. Where the United States has received diplomatic assurances the Department of State believes credible, a person "may be removed without the need for further procedures." Where it has not, an officer serves a notice of removal naming the country, but the policy states that ICE "will not affirmatively ask whether the [noncitizen] is afraid of being removed to the country of removal." ICE will generally wait at least twenty-four hours before removing, and in exigent circumstances only six. If the person does not affirmatively state a fear within twenty-four hours, they are removed. The court held these procedures fall far short of what due process requires, and found that the government had misrepresented what protections the policy actually gives. The punitive claim was refused without prejudice. The court recorded the petitioner's allegation, drawn from reporting in The New Yorker, that the government had attempted and completed an end run around the Convention against Torture by deporting a group of people to Ghana, which then sent them on to their countries of citizenship despite their fears of persecution. It noted that he did not substantiate the allegations, that the government did not deny them, and that courts in this district and across the country have recognised that the government is intentionally removing individuals to countries where they will be imprisoned. Even so, on these pleadings it had no sufficient basis to find the programme unconstitutional as a whole or punitive as applied to him, because the cases so finding were specific to a particular population and particular destination countries.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) CAT Withholding of removal Standing Ripeness Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Diplomatic assurances ICE policy of 9 July 2025 Unconstitutional punishment D.V.D. class action

Caution A district court decision, binding only on the parties. The petitioner won release and the notice protections, and lost on punishment, without prejudice. The refusal follows the same line as Saadhom v. Bondi and Vashchuk v. Bondi. The court did not doubt that some of these removals are punishment. It said the findings to that effect were tied to particular populations and particular destinations, and that this petitioner had not connected himself to them. The Uganda and Mauritania notices recorded here are court records of what the government said it intended, not findings about conditions in either country. The court's point about Uganda was that nothing was ever done about it, which raises its own question about why the notice was served at all in the last days of the removal period. The account of the Ghana removals is the petitioner's allegation as the court recorded it, sourced to a magazine article. It is not a finding. The findings on Ghana are in D.A. v. Noem, recorded separately in this register.

W.D. Wash. December 4, 2025 Final order 4 Dec 2025: 815 F. Supp. 3d 1191; 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250760; 2025 WL 3484769. Preliminary injunction 7 Nov 2025: 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220311; 2025 WL 3123991. Earlier order 23 Oct 2025: 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209241; 2025 WL 2987766. Third country: Any third country where imprisonment was likely

Decided in two stages by Judge Lasnik. On 7 November 2025 the court granted a preliminary injunction on the notice and procedure claim, but refused the punitive claim, holding that the record before it lacked the specificity and examples regarding third-country imprisonment that were present in Nguyen v. Scott. On 4 December 2025, on a fuller record, the court granted the habeas petition, ordered release on conditions, and held that the practice of third-country removal paired with imprisonment is intended to be punitive and violates due process under Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 236-38 (1896) and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693-94 (2001). Wong Wing struck down a provision of the Chinese Exclusion Act imposing imprisonment at hard labour before removal, holding that Congress may expel but may not add infamous punishment without a trial by jury, and distinguishing detention while awaiting deportation from punishment. Adopting the formulation used four days earlier in Hambarsonpour v. Bondi, the court ordered the government not to remove the petitioner to any third country where he is likely to face imprisonment or harm. The petitioner held deferral of removal to Nicaragua under the Convention against Torture, had been detained about twenty-four months, and the government had not requested travel documents from any third country. Two further passages matter. The court set out at length the account given in D.A. v. Noem, in which Judge Chutkan of the District of Columbia described five people who held withholding or deferral of removal being woken in the middle of the night at an ICE facility, shackled, put aboard a United States military cargo plane and flown to Ghana, a country none had any connection to, and taken to Dema Camp, described as a remote open-air detention facility surrounded by armed military guards. Judge Chutkan wrote that the case was "not an outlier" but part of what appeared to be "a pattern and widespread effort to evade the government's legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly." Judge Lasnik called that account deeply concerning. Second, the court declined to go further. It recorded the petitioner's concern that the government is using third states as bridge countries to send people onward to the very country a United States immigration court has barred removal to, said it shared that concern, but found no sufficiently clear evidence of punitive intent on that record. It noted that the argument could be made in the reopened removal proceedings its own order required.

Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing Infamous punishment Third-country removal Fifth Amendment due process Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) CAT CAT deferral Notice Reopened removal proceedings

Caution The government appealed on 30 January 2026 and then withdrew the appeal. On 7 April 2026 the Ninth Circuit granted the appellant's own motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and ordered that the dismissal order serve as the mandate. No. 26-10166, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10166. The judgment was never reviewed on its merits and was never reversed. The injunction stands, and the government chose not to test it on appeal. The punitive holding in this line of cases traces back to Nguyen v. Scott, decided on 21 August 2025. This opinion records that Nguyen was voluntarily dismissed by its petitioner the following month after an agreement between the parties, and so never reached a merits decision. The findings that Abubaka, Hambarsonpour and this case all rest on were therefore made at the preliminary injunction stage of a case that was then settled. That does not make them wrong, and three courts have since adopted them on their own records, but anyone relying on this line should know where it begins. Note also the sequence within this case: the same judge refused the punitive claim in November for want of specific evidence about imprisonment in destination countries, and granted it in December once that evidence was supplied. The petitioner had twenty-four convictions and still obtained the injunction, because the protection does not depend on the record of the person invoking it. The court's refusal to find punitive intent in the use of bridge countries is a limit on the decision and is recorded above rather than left out.

W.D. Wash. November 21, 2025 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229603; 2025 WL 3251155 Third country: None. The designated country of removal was France.

A man born in France in 1992 to Iranian refugee parents, brought to the United States at the age of nine and ordered removed to France in 2014, was held in immigration detention for more than eleven months while the government said repeatedly that French travel documents would issue soon. The court ordered his immediate release. It found the government had offered nothing beyond assertions, and it recorded months of inactivity on the file, including a failure to follow up until the French Embassy made contact some three months after the first approach. The court enjoined removal to any third country without notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond in reopened removal proceedings. It agreed with Nguyen v. Scott and Abubaka v. Bondi that a voluntary promise by the government, even one carrying twenty-four hours of advance notice, does not protect the statutory and due process rights at stake. On the punitive question the court said it found no reason to deviate from Abubaka, and agreed with its holding that the practice of third-country removal paired with imprisonment is intended to be punitive and violates due process under Wong Wing v. United States (1896) and Zadvydas v. Davis (2001). The order it entered is worded more broadly than the one in Abubaka: the government may not remove him to a third country where he is likely to face "imprisonment or harm." The order describes the third-country removal programme itself as unconstitutionally punitive.

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing Delay in travel documents

Caution A decision of a single district court, binding only on the parties. It is the second decision in the same district, by a different judge, to reach the punitive holding, and it adopts that holding rather than reasoning to it independently: the underlying analysis was done in Nguyen v. Scott and in Abubaka v. Bondi four days earlier. The court treated the question as settled enough within the district that it found no reason to deviate. That is how a line of district decisions hardens, and it is not a ruling by any appellate court. The commercial reporter carried a positive signal on the decision as of September 2026. The punitive analysis this decision adopts was made in Nguyen v. Scott at the preliminary injunction stage on 21 August 2025. Nguyen was voluntarily dismissed by its petitioner the following month after an agreement between the parties and never reached a merits decision, a fact recorded in the published opinion in Baltodano v. Bondi, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1191. That does not make the findings wrong, and they have since been adopted on the records of other cases, but anyone relying on this line should know where it begins.

W.D. Wash. November 17, 2025 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225914; 2025 WL 3204369 Third country: No third country designated. South Sudan and Eswatini named in the record as destinations where others in the same position were sent.

A man admitted to the United States in 1989 as the child of a refugee, ordered removed to Vietnam in 2016, and held in immigration detention for nine months and ten days, was ordered released on conditions of supervision. The court found no significant likelihood of removal to Vietnam in the reasonably foreseeable future: the process for obtaining travel documents for immigrants who arrived from Vietnam before 1995 is uncertain and protracted, and the record did not show that the government had submitted a request at all, only that it was having forms translated. The court also held that the detention clock does not restart each time immigration authorities release and then re-detain the same person. The court separately barred removal to any third country without notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond in reopened removal proceedings. It noted that the government had stated in a footnote that under its policy of 9 July 2025 it is "no longer fully following" the process the same court required in Aden v. Nielsen in 2019, and had offered no explanation for the change. On the third question the court held that the government's practice of third-country removal paired with imprisonment is intended to be punitive and therefore violates due process under Wong Wing v. United States (1896) and Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), and ordered that the petitioner not be removed to any third country where he is likely to face imprisonment on arrival. The court adopted the findings made in Nguyen v. Scott, which rested in part on sworn declarations that people removed from the United States to South Sudan and Eswatini have been imprisoned incommunicado since their arrival, and in Eswatini in solitary confinement, and on public statements by government officials describing removal as a punishment. The government did not address the merits of the punitive claim, arguing only that the question was foreclosed by other litigation, which left the court, in its own words, "with no argument from respondents to consider on this topic."

Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Third-country removal Notice Reopened removal proceedings Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing Incommunicado detention Solitary confinement

Caution A decision of a single district court, binding on nobody but the parties. The court said as much about its own earlier ruling in Aden, which it described as persuasive rather than binding. The punitive holding rests on findings made in a different case, Nguyen v. Scott, which this court adopted rather than re-examined on its own record. It was also reached without argument from the government on the merits, which is a reason to read it closely rather than a defect in it, but it means the reasoning has not been tested against an opposing case. The commercial reporter carried a caution signal on the decision as of September 2026. The Coalition has not located any decision disturbing it, and records the signal rather than interpreting it. The punitive analysis this decision adopts was made in Nguyen v. Scott at the preliminary injunction stage on 21 August 2025. Nguyen was voluntarily dismissed by its petitioner the following month after an agreement between the parties and never reached a merits decision, a fact recorded in the published opinion in Baltodano v. Bondi, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1191. That does not make the findings wrong, and they have since been adopted on the records of other cases, but anyone relying on this line should know where it begins.

D.D.C. September 15, 2025 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180319; 2025 WL 2646888 Third country: Ghana

Five citizens of Nigeria and The Gambia, each of whom had been granted withholding of removal or deferral of removal after an immigration judge found they were more likely than not to face persecution, torture or death at home, were woken in the middle of the night on 5 September 2025 at an immigration detention facility, shackled, and put aboard a United States military cargo plane. They were not allowed to notify family or counsel. One was sent without identification documents. Some were placed in straitjackets for up to sixteen hours, and one says he now has difficulty walking because his was secured so tightly. They were told in the air that they were being taken to Ghana. None is Ghanaian, none has any connection to Ghana, and none had designated Ghana during their immigration proceedings. On arrival they were taken to Dema Camp, described by the court as a remote, open-air detention facility surrounded by armed military guards. At the hearing the government agreed that, although the five hold final orders of removal, they cannot lawfully be returned to their home countries. It said Ghana had assured the United States it would not send them anywhere they would likely be tortured. One of the five was sent back to his home country almost immediately and is in hiding. The government agreed that Ghana appears to be violating the assurance it gave, agreed that the practice "is not okay," and said it could not prevent the repatriation because the United States "does not have the power to tell Ghana what to do." The court denied emergency relief. It held that the plaintiffs had not carried their burden of showing jurisdiction to order what they asked for, and it did not reach the merits. In doing so it said the government's actions "appear to be taken in disregard of or despite its obligations to provide individuals present in the United States with due process and to treat even those who are subject to removal humanely," and "appear to be part of a pattern and widespread effort to evade the government's legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly." It added that "this case is not an outlier." It closed by saying it was "alarmed and dismayed by the circumstances under which these removals are being carried out, especially in light of the government's cavalier acceptance of Plaintiffs' ultimate transfer to countries where they face torture and persecution. But its hands are tied."

Third-country removal Diplomatic assurances Chain refoulement Onward transfer Withholding of removal CAT Notice Access to counsel Manner of removal Restraint during transfer Jurisdiction

Caution The plaintiffs lost. The motion for a temporary restraining order and the motion for emergency interim relief were both denied, on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Nothing in this decision was decided on the merits, and the passages quoted above are the court's observations, not its holdings. They carry weight because of who made them and what was before her, not because they bind anyone. The account of the flight, the straitjackets and Dema Camp is drawn from the plaintiffs' own allegations and declarations as the court recorded them. The court did not make findings on them. What the government did concede on the record, at the hearing, is separate and stronger: that the five cannot lawfully be returned to their home countries, that Ghana appears to be breaking its assurance, and that the United States cannot stop it. This decision was later set out at length and called deeply concerning by the court in Baltodano v. Bondi, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1191.

9th Cir. August 27, 2025 Investigating. A secondary source gives 154 F.4th 989; CourtListener holds the opinion with no reporter citation attached. Third country: Mexico. He held withholding of removal to Cuba. Mexico was never designated as a country of removal in his proceedings.

Jorge Felix Ibarra-Perez was granted withholding of removal to Cuba by an immigration judge. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed him instead to Mexico, a country that had never been designated in his removal proceedings. He objected repeatedly. After two days in Mexico he returned to the United States and sued the federal government for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, for false imprisonment, negligence, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), which bars review of decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal orders, stripped it of jurisdiction, and dismissed. The Court of Appeals reversed and sent the case back. It read 1252(g) narrowly, as the Supreme Court has directed, and held that removing a person to a country his removal order does not name is not the execution of that order. The panel wrote that the government’s reading would "entirely insulate from judicial review any post-hearing decision by ICE to remove noncitizens to third countries where they would be in danger of persecution, torture, and even death." The panel also recorded that withholding of removal is country specific, so that ICE retained authority to remove him to another country authorised by statute. The decision opens the courthouse door. It does not decide whether what was done to him was lawful.

Third-country removal Withholding of removal Country-specific nature of withholding Jurisdiction Judicial review Federal Tort Claims Act Damages ICE policy of 9 July 2025

Caution This is a decision about jurisdiction, not about the merits. The court held only that the case may be heard, and returned it to the district court. Nothing here holds that the removal was unlawful. It is also a damages suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than a habeas petition or a petition for review, so the route it opens is a claim for compensation after the event, not a way of stopping a removal before it happens. The panel divided two to one, Judge R. Nelson dissenting. Rehearing before the full court was refused on 25 June 2026, but thirteen judges recorded their disagreement: Judge Bea, joined by Judges O’Scannlain, Callahan, Bennett, R. Nelson, Bade, Collins, Lee, Bress, Bumatay, VanDyke and Tung, wrote that the panel had nullified the statute. A decision carried by one vote and opposed by thirteen judges of the same court is not settled ground. It binds the Ninth Circuit and nowhere else.

E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025 2025 WL 1993771 Third country: None identified. The government said only that it intended to pursue a travel document.

Quoc Chi Hoac had a final order of removal to Vietnam from September 2023 and had been released on an Order of Supervision. In June 2025 he was re-detained. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may revoke supervised release only on a showing of changed circumstances making removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government offered its intention to seek a travel document. The court held that this was not enough: "Respondents’ intent to eventually complete a travel document request for Petitioner does not constitute a changed circumstance", and the fact that the government intends to complete such a request does not make it significantly likely that the person will be removed in the foreseeable future. He was ordered released, and the government was barred from re-detaining him or removing him to a third country without notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

Redetention Order of supervision Compliance with regulations Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Third-country removal Notice Due process Changed circumstances

Caution A district court decision, binding on the parties only. An earlier application for a restraining order in the same case had been refused on 30 June 2025, so the sequence matters when the case is cited. The order does not address protection under the Convention against Torture, and nothing in it turns on that.