The decisions
The register holds 175 orders, mostly from 2025 and 2026, in habeas and related proceedings arising from removals to countries other than the one named in the removal order. Each entry records the court, the date, the docket, the citation where one exists, the judge, the disposition, the nationality of the person, the third country proposed, the issues, a one-sentence holding, and, where the Coalition has a reservation about the summary, a caution saying so.
It can be filtered by issue: notice and an opportunity to present a fear-based claim, redetention after a long period on an order of supervision, mandatory detention, bond hearings, the reach of the jurisdictional bars, diplomatic assurances, and the rest.
What the country pages are for
A fear-based claim about a third country needs country evidence about that country, and the material is scattered. Each country page collects what has been reported about the arrangement, what has been reported about conditions, whether the state has accepted individual complaints under the Convention against Torture, whether it has ratified the regional instruments, and which bodies inside it take complaints. Where the Coalition has found no report or decision on a point, the page says so rather than leaving a silence that reads as a finding.
Two cautions about this material
The first is about summaries. A holding compressed to one sentence loses the procedural posture, and posture is frequently the whole case in this area. Enforcing an agreement to arbitrate is not enforcing an award; resisting removal is not obtaining release; a stay is not a merits ruling. The register names the disposition for that reason, but the order itself is the authority.
The second is about currency. This area has been moving monthly. An order that was good law when the Coalition read it may have been stayed, reversed or overtaken. Every entry links to a free public copy so that the citator work can be done properly, and it should be. For example, on 29 September 2026 the Supreme Court stayed the District of Massachusetts order and judgment of 25 February 2026 in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426, and granted certiorari on questions including “Whether the Government’s Guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U. S. C. §1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations.” The respondents’ brief is due on 16 November 2026, and the case is set for argument on 9 December 2026. Source: Supreme Court docket, No. 26-426
For an individual case while the class judgment is stayed: Practice advisory, Third Country Removals and D.V.D. v. DHS, updated 21 October 2026, by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Human Rights First, who represent the class, with a template habeas petition. It notes who is outside the class: people with final expedited removal orders, people whose asylum applications were pretermitted under an Asylum Cooperative Agreement, and people subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
Two courts of appeals have since refused stays of removal, and both relied on the Supreme Court’s stay. In Ojukwu v. Lyons (6th Cir., 9 October 2026) the court held that a class member whose stay motion “pursues the same claims that the Supreme Court held did not warrant an injunction” had not shown a likelihood of success. In Gakou v. Warden of the Prairieland Detention Center (5th Cir., 10 October 2026) the court treated a request for a stay of removal as falling within 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), so that “we lack the power to entertain Gakou’s motion,” and denied it in any event. Both are published orders. The advisory answers that “An unexplained emergency stay ruling does not establish that the government is likely to prevail on the merits,” and that district courts should not refuse to hear individual habeas petitions because of the class action where the relief sought differs from the class’s. In the Tenth Circuit, Abedi v. Carter (21 October 2026) said that “§ 1252 is not implicated by a request for a temporary injunction to stay a detainee’s removal during the pendency of a habeas proceeding challenging the legality of the detention without contesting the underlying removal order.”