Subsequent Trump and Court Action(s)

• January 27, 2025

  2025.01.27 - CBS News: Trump eyes asylum agreement with El Salvador to deport migrants there

  CBS news reports the Trump administration is pursuing a "Safe Third Country" agreement with El Salvador to allow the deportation of deport non-Salvadoran migrants there and block their ability to seek asylum in the U.S. This plan would revive a previous Trump 1.0 administration agreement that was never implemented and aligns with the current administration's broader efforts to restrict immigration. The partnership with El Salvador is also tied to addressing transnational gangs like Tren de Aragua, and President Nayib Bukele’s government is seen as a key ally due to its anti-gang policies.

  View Document
• February 3, 2025

  2025.02.03 Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele - US Department of State

  According to a State Department press release, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele on February 3rd. The release notes that "multiple agreements were struck to fight the waves of illegal mass migration currently destabilizing the entire region" and that President Bukele promised to accept and incarcerate U.S. deportations of "criminal illegal migrants from any country," including members of the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua. El Salvadoran President also offered to incarcerate "dangerous American criminals, including U.S. citizens and legal residents."

  View Document
• February 5, 2025

  2025.02.05 - ABC News: Guatemala strikes deal with Rubio to accept migrants from other countries

  According to reporting, Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo agreed to accept migrants from other countries being removed from the U.S. Under this "Safe Third Country" agreement, the U.S. would then fund the further removal of these migrants to their home countries.

  View Document
• February 13, 2025

  2025.02.13 Reported: U.S. Deports Migrants From Asia to Panama - NYT

  According to the NYT, the Trump Administration removed 119 migrants to Panama on a U.S. Air Force flight. The migrants originated "from countries such as Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and Uzbekistan . . . [nations to which it] is often difficult for the United States to return migrants. . . " President José Raúl Mulino of Panama stated that the migrants "were being housed in a local hotel and would be moved to a shelter in Darién." They will then be repatriated - a process that, according to Mr. Mulino, will be funded by the U.S. and managed by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). This removal arrangement with Panama will allow "for more rapid removal of migrants whose home countries are reluctant to accept them."

  View Document
• February 17, 2025

  2025.02.17 Reported: Costa Rica to Receive 200 Deported Migrants From U.S. - NYT

  The New York Times reports Costa Rica announced it would receive a deportation flight this week from the United States carrying 200 migrants from Central Asia and India. Like Panama, Costa Rica says its territory will “serve as a bridge” for the migrants’ return to their countries of origin, and that the repatriation process would be “fully funded by the U.S. government, under the supervision of the International Organization for Migration.”

  View Document
• March 1, 2025

  2025.03.01 Reported: Lawsuit Against Panama Challenges Detention of Trump Deportees - NYT

  NYT reports that a group of lawyers filed a suit against Panama before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over the country's detention of people deported from the United States. The lawsuit's plaintiffs are 10 Iranian Christian converts and 102 migrants "detained at a camp near a jungle in Panama." The suit, which was only filed against Panama, alleges that the United States violated the plaintiffs' right to asylum on the basis of religious persecution and "that Panama has violated domestic and international laws" by detaining these individuals.

  View Document
• March 23, 2025

  2025.03.23 Class Action Complaint - D.V.D. v U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  Four individuals with final removal orders filed a national class action in the District of Massachusetts challenging DHS’s policy of deporting noncitizens to third countries without notice and an opportunity to raise fear-based claims. The lawsuit claims that an email directive sent by ICE on February 18 "magnified the practical impact" of DHS's new policy of removing noncitizens to third countries by "instruct[ing] DHS officers to review all cases of individuals previously released from immigration detention – including those who have complied with the terms of their release for years, even decades – for re-detention and removal to a third country."

  Plaintiffs argue this violates "basic procedural protections" and denies noncitizens the "opportunity to present a fear-based claim." Moreover, plaintiffs claim the policy puts lives at risk, pointing to cases like O.C.G., who was deported to Mexico despite evidence of previous persecution. The lawsuit seeks to block DHS from carrying out these removals without basic procedural safeguards. D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **Litigation entries are limited to initial complaints and major substantive rulings. For pleadings and additional information, use name and docket number to search Civil Rights Clearinghouse and CourtListener or visit Just Security Litigation Tracker**

  View Document
• March 28, 2025

  2025.03.28 TRO - D.V.D v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  District court judge Brian E. Murphy granted a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from deporting any person to a country they are not a national of without written notice and a "meaningful opportunity" to apply for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture in the U.S. D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• March 30, 2025

  2025.03.30 DHS Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals

  Subsequent to the TRO issued in the D.V.D. litigation, DHS Secretary Noem issued guidance on removing noncitizens with a final order of removal to a third country not previously designated as the country of removal. Under the guidance, noncitizens may be removed to a third country "without the need for further procedures" if that country has provided credible "diplomatic assurances" that noncitizens removed there "will not be persecuted or tortured."

  Immigration officers are instructed to "inform the alien of removal to that country" and not "affirmatively ask whether the alien is afraid of being removed to that country." Any noncitizen that affirmatively states a fear of removal to a third country without being asked will be referred to USCIS for reasonable fear screening. If USCIS determines that a noncitizen "will more likely than not be persecuted on a statutorily protected ground or tortured in the country of removal," he/she may be referred to the immigration court. If he/she was previously in proceedings before the immigration court, ICE can move to reopen the proceedings, or alternatively, "choose to designate another country for removal."

  This memorandum was produced in D.V.D. v. Dep't. of Homeland Sec., 1:25-cv-10676-BEM (D. Mass.).

  View Document
• April 18, 2025

  2025.04.18 Preliminary Injunction - D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy granted class certification to the plaintiffs and issued a preliminary injunction in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.). The court ordered that before removing any noncitizen to a third country that is not provided for on the noncitizen’s order of removal issued in proceedings under INA Sections 240, 241(a)(5), or 238(b), the government must: (1) provide written notice to the noncitizen (and counsel, if any) of the third country to which the noncitizen may be removed, in a language that the noncitizen can understand; (2) provide meaningful opportunity for the noncitizen to raise a fear of return for eligibility for CAT protections; (3) move to reopen the proceedings if the noncitizen demonstrates “reasonable fear”; and (4) if the noncitizen is not found to have demonstrated “reasonable fear,” provide meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of 15 days, for the noncitizen to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal.

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• April 30, 2025

  2025.04.30 DVD v. DHS Order Amending PI

  In response to DHS's representation that certain removals to a third country from Guantánamo Bar had been executed by DoD without the direction or knowledge of DHS, Judge Brian E. Murphy amended the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction issued in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security that the injunction's due-process protections apply regardless of which agency conducts the removal. The court orders that after DHS takes custody of an individual, it may not cede custody or control in any manner that would prevent the individual from receiving these due process protections.

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 1, 2025

  2025.04.30 Reported: Trump administration discusses deportation agreements with Rwanda and Libya - Washington Post

  The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is in discussions with Rwanda and Libya to negotiate formal agreements for the countries to receive deportees who are not their citizens. According to the article, a Rwandan official expressed the country's willingness to accept such removals; to date, one such individual--Iraqi citizen Omar Abdulsattar Ameen--has been removed from the U.S. to Rwanda.

  View Document
• May 7, 2025

  2025.05.07 DVD v. DHS Clarification Order

  Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order clarifying that allegedly imminent removals of various noncitizens to third countries, including but not limited to Libya and Saudi Arabia, would be covered by the April 18 preliminary injunction and the April 30 order amending the April 18 preliminary injunction. The court states plainly that such removals would--if news reporting is accurate--clearly violate those orders.

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 7, 2025

  2025.05.07 - Reported: Migrants, believed to be destined for Libya, are returned to detention facility - CNN

  CNN reports that “[i]n the early morning hours of Wednesday, a group of detained migrants were bused from a facility in Texas to a base where a military aircraft awaited them . . . The military plane that was scheduled to bring migrants to Libya on Wednesday never departed, according to flight trackers and a defense official.”

  View Document
• May 16, 2025

  2025.05.16 Defendants Notice of Errata - D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  DOJ files a Notice of Errata in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security admitting to an error in a declaration filed by Brian Ortega, the Assistant Field Office Director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). Mr. Ortega originally incorrectly asserted that O.C.G. was asked if he feared removal to Mexico and he said he did not. On review, DHS cannot identify the officer who told O.C.G. about removal to Mexico or any officer that inquired about fear. D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 20, 2025

  2025.05.20 Order - D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  In response to the D.V.D. plaintiffs' motion for TRO and PI, Judge Murphy ordered DHS to "maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful."

  Judge Murphy also asserted that, "Given that the plane carrying N.M., T.T.P., and any other class member has likely departed the United States, this Court has the authority to order their return and that of any other class members as part of its inherent equitable authority." D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 20, 2025

  2025.05.20 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for TRO and PI on Behalf of Class Members NM and TTP and all Others Similarly Situated - D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  Plaintiffs in D.V.D. v. U.S. DHS filed an emergency motion requesting a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction "to enjoin . . . Defendants from removing, and if necessary, to order the immediately return [sic] of N.M., T.T.P., and all other similarly situated class members to South Sudan (and any other third country) until Defendants provide the Court and class counsel with evidence that Defendants have complied with all terms of the preliminary injunction." Plaintiffs allege that class members with limited English proficiency were served notices of removal to South Sudan that were written only in English. Plaintiffs refused to sign, but were then removed to South Sudan. When class members' counsel contacted the Port Isabel Detention Center to request to visit with their clients, ICE confirmed that class members had already been removed. D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document