A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit delivered a stinging rebuke to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on September 20, ruling that immigrants cannot be whisked away to “third-country” destinations without advance notice and a meaningful chance to object. The unanimous opinion—written by Circuit Judge Seth Aframe—invalidates a rapid-removal policy the administration has used to place thousands of migrants on flights to countries where they hold no citizenship, family ties or prior residence. Under the now-struck policy, DHS could finalize a removal order and disclose the destination only hours before departure, citing confidential “diplomatic assurances” that deportees would be treated humanely. The court said that practice “eviscerates” statutory and constitutional due-process rights: a migrant cannot reasonably raise asylum-based or humanitarian objections without time to marshal evidence. The panel also criticized DHS for failing to identify which governments had offered the assurances upon which the policy relied. Practically, the decision does not bar third-country removals outright; it forces DHS to build new procedures. Officials must now serve written notice of the proposed destination early enough for migrants—or their counsel—to request a fear interview, file motions or seek judicial review. Immigration attorneys expect a surge of last-minute filings, at least until DHS issues revised guidance. Corporations that rotate global talent through the United States should monitor the new timelines: employees who fall out of status will have additional procedural tools to delay or contest removal, potentially lengthening payroll and benefits obligations. The ruling arrives amid aggressive enforcement efforts that have already sent an estimated 25,000 people to third countries such as Liberia and Ghana. Advocacy groups hailed the decision as a rare judicial check on an enforcement strategy that, they argue, trades efficiency for human rights. DHS said it is “reviewing the opinion and considering next steps,” leaving open the possibility of a Supreme Court appeal or an interim rule that sketches the new notice standards. Until then, removal operations—and the mobility programs that depend on predictable outcomes—enter yet another period of uncertainty.
Source: Times Now World
