ProjectsThird-Country Removals

Court Decisions

The register organized by the question each court answered rather than by date, so a reader looking for the law on one point can find every decision on it, including the ones that came out the other way.

The register holds every court decision the Coalition has read, in the order the courts handed them down. That is the right order for a record and the wrong order for a search. A person arriving with a question, whether a court has ever required notice before a removal to a country the person has no connection to, does not want a chronology. He wants the decisions on that question, and he wants to see whether the courts agree.

This page is the other way in. Every record in the register is tagged with the questions it answers, and those tags are turned into the index below. Each category opens the register filtered to that question, so what appears is every decision the Coalition has read on it, including the ones that came out the other way.

What a record contains

The court and the date. The docket number and the citation, where the source supplied them. What the court decided, stated as a disposition rather than as a characterization. A one-sentence statement of the holding. And a link to the court’s own text, so that nobody has to take the Coalition’s summary on trust.

Where a source did not supply a detail, the field is left empty rather than filled with a guess. An empty field is a smaller problem than a confident error, and it is visible, which a confident error is not.

Three cautions about using it

A holding summary is not the opinion. One sentence cannot carry the reasoning, the facts it depended on, or the limits the court placed on it. The summary exists to help a reader decide which opinion to open. It is not a substitute for opening it.

A decision is only law where it is law. A ruling from one district court binds nobody, a court of appeals decision binds the district courts in its circuit, and a circuit that has not addressed a question is not bound by another circuit that has. The register records what each court said. It does not record what any of it means for a particular case in a particular place.

The law moves. A decision in this register was good law when it was read. It may have been stayed, reversed, vacated, or overtaken since. Anyone relying on an entry for a live matter should check its current status in the court’s own records before doing so.

Nothing here is legal advice, and reading it is not a substitute for a lawyer.

How this connects to the rest of the site

Decisions are the evidence the other projects rest on, which is why they are gathered here instead of being scattered through them. A country guide describes what happens to people sent to a particular place; the decisions about those removals are in this register. The diplomatic assurances project explains a doctrine; the cases that made the doctrine are in this register. Every project links into the categories that carry its case law, and this page links back to the projects, so a reader can move between the question and the subject in either direction.

By the question the court answered

Accardi doctrine 1 decision Accelerated procedure 1 decision Access to a lawyer 1 decision Access to asylum 8 decisions Access to counsel 5 decisions Administrative Procedure Act 2 decisions Appeal pending 1 decision Arrest at a courthouse 1 decision Article 3 ECHR 21 decisions Article 34 ECHR 2 decisions Article 5 ECHR 1 decision Asylum 1 decision Attorney fees 2 decisions Bilateral agreements 2 decisions Bilateral repatriation agreement 1 decision Bond hearing 20 decisions Border procedure 1 decision Burden of proof 9 decisions CAT 23 decisions CAT deferral 33 decisions CAT protection 2 decisions Chain refoulement 16 decisions Changed circumstances 8 decisions Civil contempt 2 decisions Class action 3 decisions Class certification 1 decision Class relief 9 decisions Class-wide injunctive relief 1 decision Collective expulsion 10 decisions Compliance with regulations 12 decisions Conditions of detention 3 decisions Confidentiality of asylum records 1 decision Consent 2 decisions Contrary authority 5 decisions Convention Against Torture 5 decisions Country-specific nature of withholding 6 decisions Credible fear 1 decision Custody hearing 7 decisions D.V.D. class action 14 decisions Damages 2 decisions Death penalty 2 decisions Delay in travel documents 1 decision Deportation 2 decisions Detention 6 decisions Detention authority 1 decision Detention conditions 1 decision Detention pending removal 3 decisions Diplomatic assurances 31 decisions Disclosure to a foreign government 1 decision Discontinuance 1 decision Discovery 1 decision Dublin system 1 decision Due process 45 decisions Effect of the Supreme Court stay 1 decision Effective investigation 2 decisions Effective remedy 13 decisions Enforcement of judgment 2 decisions Evidence obtained by torture 1 decision Evidence of destination conditions 4 decisions Exhaustion of remedies 1 decision Expedited removal 1 decision Extradition 1 decision Extraordinary rendition 2 decisions Extraterritorial jurisdiction 2 decisions Facilitation of return 5 decisions Fair trial 1 decision Fear screening 1 decision Fear-based claim 2 decisions Federal Tort Claims Act 2 decisions Federal control 1 decision Fifth Amendment 1 decision Fifth Amendment due process 2 decisions Final agency action 1 decision First Amendment 2 decisions Flagrant denial of justice 3 decisions Fourth Amendment 1 decision Friendly settlement 1 decision Government silence on the merits 1 decision Habeas 1 decision Habeas corpus 1 decision Habeas jurisdiction 14 decisions ICE policy of 9 July 2025 4 decisions Immigration court jurisdiction 1 decision Impartial adjudicator 1 decision Incommunicado detention 2 decisions Indefinite detention 1 decision Infamous punishment 1 decision Informal interview 19 decisions Injunctions against immigration enforcement 1 decision Interim measures 9 decisions Irreparable harm 2 decisions Judicial review 11 decisions Jurisdiction 15 decisions Jurisdiction 1252(a)(4) 1 decision Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) 7 decisions Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9) 6 decisions Jurisdiction 1252(g) 26 decisions Jurisdiction stripping 1 decision Lawful status 1 decision Liberty interest 1 decision Long-dormant removal orders 1 decision Mandamus 2 decisions Mandatory detention 1225(b) 6 decisions Manner of removal 1 decision Mass redetention 1 decision Meaningful opportunity 2 decisions Mexico 2 decisions Monitored telephone calls 1 decision Mootness 2 decisions Motions to reopen 1 decision National Environmental Policy Act 1 decision National security 3 decisions Neutral decisionmaker 1 decision Non-refoulement 5 decisions Notice 88 decisions Notice and hearing 1 decision Offshore processing 2 decisions Onward transfer 4 decisions Order of supervision 20 decisions Outsourcing of migration control 1 decision Parole 2 decisions Petition for review 3 decisions Political persecution 1 decision Political question 1 decision Pre-deprivation hearing 6 decisions Preclusion 1 decision Preliminary injunction 8 decisions Preliminary injunction vacated 1 decision Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) 57 decisions Pushbacks 10 decisions REAL ID Act section 1252(a)(4) 1 decision Re-detention 1 decision Readmission agreement 1 decision Reasonable fear 7 decisions Redetention 73 decisions Redetention at a reporting appointment 1 decision Refugee Convention Article 33(2) 1 decision Refugee status 1 decision Reinstated removal orders 3 decisions Reinstatement of supervision conditions 1 decision Release from custody 5 decisions Remand to the BIA 2 decisions Remedy 6 decisions Removal already carried out 1 decision Reopened removal proceedings 12 decisions Restraint during transfer 1 decision Revocation 2 decisions Revocation of supervision 18 decisions Ripeness 8 decisions Rule 8(b)(6) admission 1 decision Rule of non-inquiry 3 decisions Safe country of origin 1 decision Safe third country 6 decisions Search and rescue 1 decision Secret detention 2 decisions Section 1226 and section 1231 1 decision Section 1231(a)(6) 1 decision Section 1252(a)(5) 1 decision Section 1252(f)(1) 4 decisions Section 1252(g) 1 decision Section 705 stay 1 decision Self-represented petitioner 4 decisions Solitary confinement 1 decision Standing 2 decisions Statutory sequence 1 decision Stay of removal 5 decisions Stay of transfer 2 decisions Stay pending appeal 2 decisions Successive habeas petition 1 decision Suspension Clause 2 decisions Temporary restraining order 5 decisions Termination of deferral 1 decision Termination without notice 4 decisions Third-country designation 46 decisions Third-country fear screening 2 decisions Third-country removal 56 decisions Transfer 1 decision Transfer of custody 1 decision Transfer of detainees 3 decisions Transfer out of district 8 decisions Travel documents 14 decisions UNHCR evidence 1 decision Unconstitutional punishment 11 decisions Venue 3 decisions Withholding of removal 47 decisions Withholding-only proceedings 3 decisions Wong Wing 8 decisions Zadvydas 3 decisions

A decision that answers more than one question appears under each of them, so these figures add up to more than the number of decisions in the register. Open the whole register in date order.

The subjects these decisions belong to

  • Third-Country Removals The removal of people who hold protection under the Convention Against Torture to countries other than their own: what the law permits, what it prohibits, what the record shows, and where the sources are.
  • Transit and Temporary Recipients States that agreed to take, or have taken, people removed from the United States who are not their nationals. What a person actually finds on arrival: whether transfers there are established, whether people were detained, what status they were given and for how long, whether anyone has been removed onward, and who can be reached inside the country.
  • Diplomatic Assurances A promise by one government to another that a particular person will not be tortured after he is handed over. What the law requires before one may be relied on, what the courts have held, and why serious people disagree about whether the practice can be made safe.
  • Punitive Third-Country Removals A third-country removal can be lawful. This project is about what has been added to it: how people are moved, what has been waiting for them on arrival, and what United States courts have done when they were shown the answer.
  • States Engaging in Refoulement States documented breaching the prohibition on return through their own conduct: sending people into danger, pushing them back at a border, removing them in disregard of the prohibition, or sending on toward danger people another state transferred to them. Judged by exactly the same test as every other state on this site.
  • Countries Named in Protection Orders Countries a court or a United States immigration judge has found it unsafe to return a particular person to. Membership is set by the Coalition’s register of court decisions and by the immigration courts’ own figures, not by any assessment of danger. Protection is granted to a person, never to a nationality.