Lawsuit Challenges U.S. ‘Third-Country’ Deportations To Equatorial Guinea

Human rights organizations have launched a major legal challenge against the U.S. policy of deporting migrants to third countries, filing a complaint over the transfer of asylum seekers and other migrants from the United States to Equatorial Guinea, a move critics say violates international human rights protections and exposes deportees to persecution and abuse.

The complaint was filed before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on behalf of 14 African migrants who were deported from the United States to Equatorial Guinea between late 2025 and April 2026. The migrants had originally received legal protections in the United States that barred their return to their home countries because of fears of persecution, torture, or other serious harm.

According to the legal filing, six of the deportees were subsequently transferred from Equatorial Guinea to their countries of origin within the past week despite objections from lawyers and rights advocates. Human rights groups say three of those individuals were later returned to Equatorial Guinea after their home countries refused to admit them, while the whereabouts of three others remain unknown. Eight deportees are reportedly still being held in Equatorial Guinea.

The lawsuit argues that the transfers amount to what international law describes as “chain refoulement” — the indirect return of people to countries where they may face persecution, torture, imprisonment, or death. Lawyers representing the migrants contend that many of those deported had already convinced U.S. immigration judges that they faced credible threats in their home countries, including political persecution, ethnic discrimination, religious oppression, and violence related to sexual orientation.

The complaint asks the African Commission to order Equatorial Guinea to halt further deportations, improve detention conditions, provide access to legal representation, and compensate affected individuals. While decisions by the Commission are not directly enforceable, legal experts say they can place significant diplomatic and political pressure on governments accused of human rights violations.

The case shines a spotlight on the Trump administration’s expanded use of third-country deportation agreements as part of its immigration enforcement strategy. Under these arrangements, migrants are removed not to their countries of citizenship but to partner nations willing to receive them. U.S. officials have defended the policy as lawful and necessary to strengthen border security and facilitate removals of individuals who cannot easily be repatriated.

According to a recent U.S. Senate report cited by rights groups, Washington has spent more than $32 million on third-country deportation agreements, including approximately $7.5 million connected to arrangements involving Equatorial Guinea. Critics argue that many of the agreements have been negotiated with limited public transparency and insufficient safeguards for deportees.

The legal challenge comes amid broader court battles over the administration’s deportation policies. Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that deporting migrants to countries not specified in their immigration proceedings without adequate notice or an opportunity to challenge the transfer was unlawful. However, parts of the policy remain tied up in ongoing appeals and litigation.

Human rights advocates have raised particular concerns about Equatorial Guinea, a Central African nation frequently criticized by international watchdogs for restrictions on political freedoms, allegations of arbitrary detention, and other human rights abuses. Lawyers representing the deportees argue that migrants sent there have been left in legal limbo, with uncertain immigration status and limited access to legal assistance.

Neither the government of Equatorial Guinea nor U.S. immigration authorities immediately responded to the latest legal filing. The case is expected to become a key test of the legality and human rights implications of third-country deportation agreements, which have increasingly become a central component of U.S. immigration enforcement policy.

As the African Commission reviews the complaint, rights groups say the outcome could influence how other African countries respond to similar agreements with Washington and could shape future debates over the balance between immigration enforcement and international protections for refugees and asylum seekers.