US President Donald Trump's administration is heading for one of the harshest and most dangerous deportations in recent years, sending migrants from Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey to the Central African Republic, a country that has been living in extreme poverty and insecurity for decades.

According to Reuters, the first flights could take off within hours with about 20 people on board, including those who have received court rulings preventing their deportation to their countries of origin due to the risk of persecution or torture, but Washington is using a new agreement that allows them to be deported to a "third country" with which they have no connection and no ability to protect them.

Lawyer Emily Trussell described the situation as a dangerous precedent, stressing that her clients, two Iranians, one of whom converted to Christianity and the other a democracy activist, could face real risks in a country suffering from institutional collapse.

Deportation Agreement

Trussell explained that their "stay deportation" decision means that the immigration judge is convinced that there is a more than 50 percent chance that they will be persecuted or tortured if they return to Iran, but that the Trump administration is crossing this legal barrier by transferring people to Central Africa, where they will be housed in temporary facilities in the capital, Bangui, rather than being sent back directly.

Sources confirmed that the list is not limited to Iranians but includes Syrians who have received judicial protection, Afghans who have fled direct threats, and a Turk who has been prevented from returning due to fears of political persecution, all of whom may suddenly find themselves in one of the world's poorest countries, where 5.5 million people live amid armed conflict and economic collapse.

The administration defends its policy as "legal," but rights groups describe it as vague, harsh and lacking safeguards, warning that some deportees could face the risk of being later returned to the countries from which they fled—a flagrant violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

Informed officials predicted that the agreement with the Central African Union would include hundreds of migrants in the next phase, opening the door to a massive wave of deportations to a country already suffering from security fragility that does not allow for the protection of its population.

Conditions of Relocation Plans to a Third Country

At the U.S. level, the plan directly collides with the Immigration and Asylum Act, which guarantees anyone who arrives in the U.S. the right to apply for full and fair asylum, making their deportation without examining their files a clear violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution.

According to US human rights centers, the requirement of a "safe third state" is not met at all, as Central Africa, mired in poverty and insecurity, cannot be classified as a safe country, which gives lawyers a solid ground to file urgent lawsuits for a stay of execution.

U.S. courts, especially the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, have a long history of suspending mass deportation decisions until their constitutionality is determined, meaning that any executive step may immediately be tied to a single judicial decision.

The U.S. plan runs into a tougher legal wall, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which forms the cornerstone of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits any country from moving a person to a place where they would be in danger.

The Convention against Torture prohibits the deportation of anyone to a country where they are likely to face torture or inhumane treatment, a clear danger in Central Africa, and rights groups rely on the precedent of the British "Rwanda Plan" that was struck down by the Supreme Court for not considering Rwanda a safe country, considering the current US case as a replica of that failed experiment.

Responses of the States Concerned

The official reactions of the countries involved in the plan to deport migrants to a third country have varied between U.S. secrecy, vague approval from receiving countries, and silence from countries of origin. In Washington, the Department of Homeland Security defended the agreements as "completely legal," asserting that deportees would receive full procedures and guarantees before they leave, while the State Department remained silent and refrained from providing any media comment on the details of the deals or their financial terms, adding to the uncertainty of the scene.

The migrants' countries of origin, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey, have remained completely silent, without any official comment, while the Central African Republic has tentatively agreed to take in hundreds of migrants, but has not revealed any details of the political or financial compensation it received from Washington, while informed sources indicate that the authorities plan to house the deportees in apartments inside the capital in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration, rather than placing them in open camps, in an attempt to show the minimum of "stability" in front of the international community.

Other African countries that have already entered into similar deals—such as Ghana, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Equatorial Guinea—have made no secret of agreeing under direct political pressure and financial incentives from the Trump administration, reflecting the nature of these barter-based arrangements rather than humanitarian protection standards.