News & Reports
Reports and analysis on torture and refoulement from every region, with the source for each statement.
The Country That Was Supposed to Be Safe Sent Them Back
Part 4 of 7. Ghana offered West Africans deported from the United States a safe haven. People protected by American immigration judges say it sent them to the very countries those judges had ruled out. What the record shows, how the government answers it, and when a third-country removal becomes refoulement by another route.
Payments to Other Governments, and the Safeguards That Should Come With Them
Part 5 of 7. The United States has committed tens of millions of dollars to foreign governments that agree to accept people it removes. Some of the promises to protect the people sent are written in memoranda that disclaim legal effect; others are one-sided assurances; most are made by governments already bound by the Convention Against Torture. What the public record does not show is any regular means of checking that the promises are kept.
Removal to a Third Country: What Nasrallah v. Barr Permits, and What It Does Not
Part 2 of 7. How a lawful alternative to removal into torture became the center of a dispute over diplomatic assurances, notice, and the risk of onward refoulement.
A Criminal Conviction Does Not End Protection Against Torture
Part 1 of 7. A conviction and a final removal order can make a person removable from the United States. Under the 1998 statute that implements the Convention Against Torture, its regulations, and decisions of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits and the Supreme Court, neither one permits removal to a country where torture is likely.
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.
Special Rapporteur on Torture: Assessments Must Cover the Whole Chain of Transfer
On 28 July 2026 the UN Special Rapporteur on torture addressed states overhauling their removal systems, emphasising individualised assessment and analysis of the entire chain of transfer.
OHCHR, 'No shortcuts around torture ban as governments overhaul removal systems, UN expert warns', Special Rapporteur on torture, 28 July 2026.
UN Experts Urge Torture-Risk Assessment Before Any Transfer to a Third Country
Seven United Nations special procedures mandates issued a joint statement on 8 July 2025 urging that torture risks be assessed before any person is transferred to a country other than their own.
OHCHR, 'UN experts alarmed by resumption of US deportations to third countries, warn authorities to assess risks of torture', joint statement of seven special procedures mandates, 8 July 2025.
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.
US Court Sets Aside Third-Country Removal Policy; Appeal Court Stays the Judgment
A US district court held in February 2026 that people facing removal to a third country are entitled to meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise a country-specific claim. The judgment was stayed on appeal in March 2026.
DHS v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153 (U.S. June 23, 2025); D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-10676-BEM, 2026 WL 521557 (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2026); First Circuit stay of 16 March 2026; DHS policy memorandum, 'Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals', 30 March 2025; ICE guidance of 9 July 2025.