A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to return a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico in spite of his fears of being harmed there, finding that the removal likely “lacked any semblance of due process.” The ruling exposes critical gaps in how DHS applies withholding of removal protections and conducts third-country removals.
What changed
The man, who is gay, was protected from being returned to his home country under a U.S. immigration judge’s order at the time, but the U.S. put him on a bus and sent him to Mexico instead. An earlier court proceeding determined the man, identified as O.C.G., risked persecution or torture if returned to Guatemala, but he also feared returning to Mexico, where he presented evidence of being raped and held for ransom.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued the order days after the Justice Department notified him that its claim that the man had expressly stated he was not afraid of being sent to Mexico was based on erroneous information, and upon further investigation, officials were unable to identify any ICE officer who had asked the man about fears he had for his safety.
Judge Murphy wrote in his 14-page ruling that no one has ever suggested that O.C.G. poses any sort of security threat and that “In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances, only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped,” ordering the administration take “all immediate steps” to “facilitate” the man’s return to the U.S.
Why it matters
This decision establishes binding law in the Massachusetts federal district on a critical practice point: a withholding of removal is an order that prevents the United States from deporting someone to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The order here confirms that the government cannot legally bypass that protection by deporting the beneficiary to a third country without independently assessing that third country’s safety.
Murphy stressed that O.C.G. poses no security threat, making clear that security concerns do not justify circumventing due process. For practitioners, this signals that clients with valid withholding orders cannot simply be removed by administrative fiat—counsel should ensure that any threatened removal to an alternate location is flagged immediately with evidence of prior persecution or torture in that location.
Murphy’s order adds to a string of findings by federal courts against recent Trump administration deportations, including other deportations to third countries and the erroneous deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an El Salvadoran who had lived in Maryland for roughly 14 years working and raising a family. This pattern suggests the court may be receptive to additional challenges on similar grounds.
Way forward
-
Audit client files immediately: If any client has received a withholding of removal and been threatened with or actually deported to a third country, file an emergency motion for return and cite this decision and Murphy’s preliminary injunction blocking third-country removals without due process.
-
Document fear of harm in all countries: In every removal defense case, ensure a sworn declaration addresses not only the country of origin but any prior experiences of harm in transit countries or potential third-country destinations.
-
Monitor third-country removals: Track all DHS communications about potential third-country removal. Any removal to a country other than the country named in the withholding order is potentially subject to challenge under this precedent.
-
Request stay pending appeal: If DHS moves to appeal Murphy’s order or to deport a similarly situated client, request an immediate stay pending exhaustion of appellate review, citing the likely success on the merits.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Forms is a software company, not a law firm. Do not rely on this article as a substitute for competent legal counsel from a licensed immigration attorney. Immigration law and policy change frequently and without notice; you must independently verify any information against the primary source document and current law. Always consult a qualified immigration attorney before advising clients or taking action in any immigration matter.