04/14/2026
The DRC Third-Country Deportation Deal: A Legal Analysis
What's Happening
The DRC has agreed to receive migrants from the U.S. under the Trump administration's third-country deportation program. Deportees are expected to start arriving this month, with the U.S. covering all logistics costs. (PBS)
The U.S. has entered into similar deals with El Salvador, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Eswatini, Ghana, Rwanda, and South Sudan. The DRC is now the latest addition. (JURIST)
The Core Legal Problem
A key bone of contention is that many of these migrants hold protection orders from U.S. immigration judges specifically barring their return to their home countries over safety concerns. (BorderReport)
More than 13,000 migrants with pending asylum requests in the United States have received deportation orders to countries with which they have no connection, according to data from Mobile Pathways. (CiberCuba)
In February 2026, Federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts declared this policy illegal for violating federal immigration law and Fifth Amendment due process principles. The Trump administration appealed, and in March a federal appellate court stayed the lower court order while litigation continues. (JURIST)
Conditions on the Ground
The Danger Problem
Critics argue migrants are being sent to countries with "notoriously repressive governments and poor human rights records." Concern also persists over whether local infrastructure near Kinshasa can meet medical and humanitarian needs. (VisaVerge)
In comparable cases such as the 29 migrants sent to Equatorial Guinea deportees were left stranded without access to asylum or legal assistance, at a cost of approximately $282,000 per deportee. (CiberCuba)
Cuban nationals deported to South Sudan and Eswatini with no connection to those countries remain detained without formal charges or legal representation. (CiberCuba)
The Geopolitical Motive
Why DRC Said Yes
Bloomberg News speculated the DRC's agreement to accept third-country deportees was part of its effort to gain American support for getting Rwanda to adhere to the terms of the Trump-brokered peace deal a deal tied to major U.S. investments in Congolese critical minerals. (Breitbart)
What This Means for Immigration attorneys
Several urgent practice angles here;
CAT (Convention Against Torture) protections
If a client has a CAT order, third-country removal arguably violates the same principle. The Kilmar Ábrego García case set a chilling precedent of the administration circumventing these orders.
Withholding of removal
Clients with withholding orders tied to country-specific persecution should be flagged immediately. Third-country deportation to an active conflict zone like DRC could independently constitute a CAT/withholding violation regardless of the client's nationality.
BIA appeals
For clients with pending BIA appeals, the active litigation on the Murphy ruling is a live hook to argue against third-country removal while appeals are pending.
Nigerian clients specifically
Nigeria is not yet on the third-country list, but given the pattern of African nation deals, this is worth monitoring closely for our Nigerian Clients.
#
