Over ten days, the U.S. moved more than 100 deportees, including Afghans and Cubans, to eight African nations under third-country deals.
Story Snapshot
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement used third-country removals to send noncitizens to African states.
- Reuters detailed a diversion from Liberia to Equatorial Guinea after deportees refused to disembark.
- Destinations spanned Central and East Africa, including South Sudan and the Central African Republic.
- Law permits removal to any country that accepts the person, subject to due process limits.
What Happened In The 10-Day Push
A news outlet reported that, across ten days, the government flew more than 100 people from Afghanistan, Cuba, and other nations to eight countries in Africa, using third-country removal agreements.
Another report said that the listed destinations reflect a broad network: South Sudan, Eswatini, Rwanda, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Congo, Uganda, Sierra Leone, and the Central African Republic.
It was also added a specific case from that window: five people slated for Liberia who ended up in Equatorial Guinea after resisting orders on the tarmac.
Third-country removal means sending a person to a country that is neither the country on the removal order nor their home. United States law allows this when a willing country accepts the person and certain conditions are met.
Agencies use this tool when origin governments refuse to issue travel documents, when flights are blocked, or when security issues make a direct return slow or risky. The government leaned on new and revived agreements with African partners to keep removals moving during this period.
How The Legal Ground Rules Shape The Flights
The Supreme Court described third-country removals as lawful if the destination government agrees to accept the individual, citing immigration law provisions that authorize this approach. Courts and practitioners have debated notice and safety standards, but the core authority remains.
A report showed how this plays out on the ground: when a planned Liberia handoff stalled, escorts re-routed the plane and completed a transfer in Equatorial Guinea under an existing arrangement. That illustrates the statute’s flexibility and the operational demand for countries that will take custody fast.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement notices have stated that people “intend to remove you to the Central African Republic,” indicating the formal use of this authority in case files.
Reports say they tied that type of notice to a set of African destinations seen during August transfers. Advocates argue some destinations pose higher risks.
Policymakers counter that the law allows removal to a country that will accept the person and that agreements include assurances and procedures aimed at safety and order. The balance between speed and safeguards drives much of the current debate.
The African Network Behind The Transfers
Amnesty International cataloged a cluster of African countries that entered third-country arrangements or signaled acceptance, including the Central African Republic, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Uganda. The Associated Press reporting aligned with part of that list in describing recent flights and arrivals.
This web matters because any single airport refusal can derail an operation. A wider set of partners gives U.S. teams options when a primary plan fails or when paperwork lags.
ICE Deports Afghans And Others To Africa, Expanding Third Country Deportations
Why Are You Demonic Supposed To Be Law Enforcement Deporting People To Foreign Countries Instead Of Sending Them To Their Home Countries? You Want To Have Them
Killed. Shame On All Of You— Venida Johnson (@JohnsonVenida) August 30, 2026
The legal text says the government can remove a person to any country that will accept them, and the Supreme Court has recognized that power.
The reporting shows the government used that power to solve logjams and move people with final orders out of U.S. custody. That aligns with a basic principle of sovereignty: a nation that sets rules must also enforce them, or the rules become suggestions.
Sources:
kjzz.org, amnesty.org, ajc.com, prospect.org, politicalwire.com, refugees.org
