Despite court wins, immigrants stay detained as ICE seeks to deport them

WASHINGTON- RV had already spent six months in detention in a California facility when he won his case in immigration court in June.

He testified that he fled his native Cuba in 2024 after protesting against the government, for which he was imprisoned, monitored and persecuted. So after being kidnapped in Mexico, he entered the United States illegally and told border agents he feared for his life.

An immigration court judge granted him protection from deportation to Cuba, and RV, 21, was eager to reunite with his family in Florida.

But RV, who asked that his full name not be used for fear of government retaliation, has not been made public. At the detention center, he said, agents told him they would always find a way to deport him — if not to Cuba, then perhaps to Panama or Costa Rica.

“The wait is so hard,” he said in an interview. “It’s like they don’t want to accept that I won.”

RV is part of what immigration lawyers describe as a growing trend: Some immigrants who gain protection from deportation to their home countries are detained indefinitely.

Often, the person was detained while the federal government appealed their victory or searched for another country willing to take them.

The government has long had the ability to make such appeals or seek another country where it could deport someone; the Department of Homeland Security usually has 90 days find somewhere else to send them.

But, in practice, such removals to third countries were rare, so the person was usually released and allowed to remain in the United States.

This practice changed under the Trump administration. Recent instructions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel support continued detention of individuals. A memo from June 24for example, states that “field offices no longer have the ability to discretionarily release foreigners.”

These are cases involving immigrants who, rather than being granted asylum, are granted one of two types of immigration relief, known as “refusal of removal” orders and protection under the International Convention Against Torture. Both have a higher burden of proof than asylum, but do not offer a path to citizenship.

These forms of relief differ from asylum in one key respect: while asylum protects against deportation anywhere, others only protect against deportation to a country where the person risks being harmed or tortured.

Jennifer Norris, an attorney with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said the government’s actions now render the denial of deportation and protections under the anti-torture convention meaningless.

“We have entered a dangerous era,” Norris said. “These are clients who did everything right. They won their case before an immigration judge and now they are being treated like criminals and remain in detention even after an immigration judge ruled in their favor.”

Laura Lunn, director of advocacy and litigation at the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network in Colorado, noted that rules against double jeopardy do not apply in these cases, so the government has the option to appeal if it loses.

“Here, they have so much control over whether a person remains in custody that if they just appeal, that person could stay in custody for at least six months, if not years,” Lunn said.

Homeland Security did not respond to specific questions and declined to comment.

Lawyers representing immigrants in prolonged detention say the government is keeping people locked up in hopes of wearing out their clients and making them give up their fight to stay in the United States

Ngựa, a Vietnamese man who asked to be identified by his family nickname, meaning horse, has been detained in California since crossing the southern border illegally in March.

Ngựa fled Vietnam last year after being tortured by police who tried to extort a “protection fee” from him, according to his asylum application. When he refused, the police beat and imprisoned him and threatened to kill him and his family.

An immigration judge recently denied Ngựa asylum but granted her the protection of the anti-torture convention. His pro bono lawyers appealed the asylum denial.

In an interview through an interpreter, he said he chose to seek refuge in the United States because he believed the government of any other country would send him back to Vietnam. He added that he did not expect American authorities to try to get rid of him.

Ngựa said ICE agents told him they knew they couldn’t send him back to Vietnam, but that they would find another country willing to take him. Every morning, he said, an officer goes from dorm to dorm asking if anyone wants to self-deport.

The thought of being sent back keeps him up at night, but the alternative is just as bad: “I’m afraid of being held here for years,” he says.

DUS Regulations authorize continued detention when “there is a significant probability of removing a detained alien in the reasonably foreseeable future”.

Such scenarios are increasingly possible since a Supreme Court ruling in June expanded immigration authorities’ ability to quickly deport people to countries with which they have no personal ties.

After the judgment, ICE has issued guidelines directing officers to generally give migrants scheduled for deportation to a third country “at least 24 hours’ notice,” but as little as six hours in “demanding circumstances.”

The guidance also states that the United States must receive credible diplomatic assurances that those deported will not be persecuted or tortured.

This year, the Trump administration negotiated deals with several countries, including Ghana, El Salvador and South Sudan — which is on the brink of civil war — to accept deportees.

“It has become increasingly common for the government to hold back people who are granted protection because they are actively seeking, in most cases, a third country to accept them,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

Realmuto is one of the lead attorneys in the case challenging Homeland Security’s third-country removal practice.

Federal law states that Homeland Security should first search for other countries with which the deportee has personal ties, and then, if that is “impractical, inadvisable, or impossible,” find a country whose government is willing to accept them.

Realmuto said the Trump administration is moving straight to the latter resort. As a result, she explained, several people deported to a third country were returned by that country’s authorities to the country they had initially fled.

Among them is Rabbiatu Kuyateh, a 58-year-old woman who fled Sierra Leone’s civil war 30 years ago and settled in Maryland until ICE agents arrested her this summer during her annual check-in.

NBC News reported that because a judge had barred ICE from returning her to Sierra Leone, where she had been tortured, the agency deported her to Ghana. But Ghanaian authorities forced her on a bus to Sierra Leone.

In fiscal year 2024, 2,506 people were denied removal or protected under the anti-torture convention, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Realmuto said that, like Kuyateh, tens of thousands of immigrants have benefited from suspension or deferral over several decades. These people now face being detained again while the government works to deport them to another country, she said.

The case of FB, a 27-year-old Colombian woman who entered the United States through the San Ysidro port of entry in 2024, also illustrates the government’s approach to the anti-torture convention. FB asked to be identified by its initials for fear of reprisals from the US government.

In February, FB obtained protection from the anti-torture convention. But instead of releasing her, Homeland Security said it was trying to send her back to Honduras, Guatemala or Brazil.

In September, FB’s lawyers filed a motion in federal court seeking his release.

“It’s difficult to argue that someone’s deportation is imminent when they’ve been detained for eight months,” said his lawyer, Kristen Coffey.

Court records show the judge initially denied the request after ICE officials claimed they had booked a flight for her to Bolivia that would depart three days later.

But a month later, she was still detained in the United States.

In an order granting FB’s release last month, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in Indiana said the government’s assertion that FB would be deported imminently had “proven to be false” and that keeping her in custody was “contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

She was released the same day.