The U.S.– Ghana deportation dispute: What to know
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan provides closing remarks to conclude a naturalization ceremony at the National Archives in Washington on Sept. 17, 2019. Image Credit: Jeffrey Reed/U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
A federal judge has raised alarms over the Trump administration’s recent decision to deport West African migrants to Ghana, suggesting the move might be a way to sidestep legal protections granted to these individuals. Migrants from Nigeria and The Gambia who have fear-based protections say they were sent to Ghana under an agreement with the U.S., only to learn they might be returned to their home countries, where they fear persecution or torture.
The Case: What Migrants and Attorneys Allege
Attorneys representing the migrants argue that several individuals were given withholding of removal protections or similar judicial orders in U.S. immigration courts, meaning they legally cannot be sent back to their home nations due to risk of harm. However, these protections appear to have been bypassed when the migrants were deported, not to their own countries, but to Ghana, which agreed to accept them.
The lawsuit claims that during transit to Ghana, some migrants were shackled and restrained for long periods, one alleges being held in “straitjackets” for 16 hours, and upon arrival held in an open-air Ghanaian detention facility under poor conditions. One of the plaintiffs has already been sent to Gambia and is now in hiding due to fears related to his sexual orientation. The others are reportedly awaiting potential further deportation.
READ ALSO
Why Eswatini? Inside the surprising deportation choice for Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Eswatini receives first Third‑Country deportees under new U.S. policy
Legal Response and Judicial Actions
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan demanded that the Department of Justice and other involved agencies detail what steps are being taken to ensure that Ghana does not deport these individuals to their countries of origin, in violation of U.S. court orders. She ordered a report by a specified deadline.
The government, via its attorneys, has maintained that although Ghana provided assurances, the U.S. lacks the power to enforce how Ghana treats deportees once they are outside U.S. custody. The judge expressed skepticism over that defense, suggesting it may amount to a deliberate “end-run” around legal obligations.
Key Issues: Legal Protections vs. Third-Country Deportations
- Withholding of Removal & Convention Against Torture: Some migrants had been granted protections under U.S. law and international agreements preventing return to countries where they face persecution.
- Third-Country Deportations: The administration is using Ghana as a “third country.” The legal question is whether this violates protections from removal. Critics argue this strategy may circumvent U.S. and international law.
- Assurances and Oversight: Ghana allegedly gave assurances not to send these migrants to countries where they risk harm, but attorneys say Ghana is preparing to do exactly that in some cases, raising questions about oversight and accountability.
Broader Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy
This case touches on major tensions in U.S. immigration enforcement: the balance between border control policies, diplomatic agreements, and legally binding protections for migrants.
Some civil rights groups say this could set a dangerous precedent if the U.S. can transfer responsibility to third nations without ensuring protections follow. Others warn this may damage U.S. credibility internationally.
Ghanaian opposition voices have also expressed concern, arguing that the agreement was not formally approved by the legislative body and that it could harm Ghana’s human rights standing globally.
What Happens Next
Judge Chutkan has ordered a report from the U.S. government explaining its efforts to prevent further deportations from Ghana to unsafe home countries. Legal challenges remain for the migrants involved; at least one has already fled to hiding in his home country.
Advocacy and human rights groups are closely monitoring whether Ghana follows through on its assurances. The outcome may force policy reviews regarding the use of third-country agreements in deportation practices.
