Iranian Nationals Face “Anywhere‑But‑Iran” Removals as U.S.–Rwanda Pipeline Opens and Uganda Signs On

/ Civil Justice & Rights, Deportation/ Removal, ICE Detention, Legal Analysis, Political & Current Events / By

The U.S.–Rwanda transfer pipeline is now live, Uganda says it’s in, and the Supreme Court’s late‑June order kept DHS’s third‑country playbook humming. For Iranian nationals who cannot lawfully be returned to Iran under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), that combination means a sharper risk of “elsewhere” removals—with chain‑refoulement a foreseeable, not theoretical, outcome. This month Rwanda confirmed receipt of seven people from the U.S.; Uganda first denied, then acknowledged an agreement in principle to accept some deportees; and federal litigation over notice and fear screening before third‑country removals remains constrained by a Supreme Court stay. Meanwhile, Iranian residents long embedded in U.S. communities are being detained, and one man was told he’d be sent to Australia or Romania—countries he’s never lived in. AP News+1Reuters+1ABC

Developments

Rwanda transfers began. Kigali says the “first group of seven vetted migrants” arrived in mid‑August under a U.S. agreement that could reach up to 250 people. Details on identities and criminal histories weren’t disclosed. Rwanda says the group is in IOM‑linked accommodation; four intend to stay. Washington referred questions to Kigali. AP NewsReuters

Uganda’s on‑again deal. On August 20, a Ugandan official denied any U.S. deportee pact; the ministry confirmed an agreement the next day, with conditions excluding people with criminal records and unaccompanied minors and indicating a preference for African nationals. Reuters+1

Eswatini and South Sudan precedents. The U.S. sent five men to Eswatini in July; they are being held in solitary confinement “in transit,” with no timeline for repatriation. Earlier in July, eight men were flown to South Sudan after weeks in U.S. custody at a base in Djibouti. Both countries have poor detention records and ongoing rights concerns. AP News+1

Litigation snapshot (D.V.D. v. DHS). A Massachusetts district court certified a nationwide class and ordered notice plus a meaningful chance to raise CAT fears before any third‑country removal. On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed that order pending appeal, and DHS simultaneously issued a March 30 “Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals” that allows removals without additional process when State deems diplomatic assurances “credible.” Government counsel has nevertheless told the Court—this term—that DHS must give notice and an opportunity to assert fear before third‑country removal. Catholic Legal Immigration NetworkAILANational Immigration Litigation Alliance+1iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com

Policy accelerator inside DHS/ICE. A February 18 internal directive instructed officers to revisit non‑detained dockets—including those with INA withholding or CAT deferral—for re‑detention and third‑country viability. Post‑stay implementation guidance tells ERO to follow the March 30 memo. In practice, this means surprise custody at check‑ins and compressed timelines. Catholic Legal Immigration NetworkNational Immigration Litigation Allianceiptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com

BIA narrows CAT. In Matter of A‑A‑F‑V‑, 29 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2025), the Board reversed an IJ’s grant of CAT to a bisexual Salvadoran “criminal deportee,” holding harsh prison conditions, even amid a state of exception, didn’t meet CAT’s “specific intent” standard; the Attorney General later designated it as precedent. Two companion July precedents (E‑Z‑; S‑S‑) likewise tighten the screws. Expect heavier headwinds on “torture via detention” theories. Department of JusticeCatholic Legal Immigration Network

Iranian‑national cases moving. AP documented arrests of Iranian residents with decades in the U.S.; DHS touted “national security” sweeps without specifics. Separately, Reza Zavvar, an Iranian man who arrived in 1985 and holds a 2000s withholding order to Iran, received a DHS notice of intent to remove him to Australia or Romania—countries with which he has no ties. Australian officials said they’d received no request. AP NewsABC

Third‑country removals of Iranians are not hypothetical. ICE has previously used the U.S.–Canada Safe Third Country framework to remove an unlawfully present Iranian national who was a Canadian permanent resident. That case shows the government’s willingness to leverage any available acceptance channel—even when the country isn’t the person’s nationality. ICE

Conditions in Receiving Countries

Rwanda. Civil and political rights remain sharply restricted; HRW details transnational repression. Rwanda has also been accused of backing M23 in eastern Congo, where massacres were reported this month—hardly confidence‑building for a “safety” destination dependent on opaque assurances. Human Rights Watch+1Reuters

Uganda. The 2023 Anti‑Homosexuality Act has unleashed state‑enabled abuse of LGBTQ+ people; arbitrary arrests and ill‑treatment persist. The State Department’s 2024 report lists credible incidents of torture and enforced disappearances. These conditions multiply risk for Iranian LGBTQ+ deportees. The GuardianState.gov

South Sudan. Conflict, arbitrary detention, and torture by security services are well‑documented. The capacity to safeguard non‑nationals transferred under a U.S. deal is questionable. Human Rights Watch

Eswatini. Absolute monarchy with a record of cracking down on dissent; AP confirms U.S. transferees are in solitary confinement. Human Rights WatchAP News

Developments

Rwanda transfers began. Kigali says the “first group of seven vetted migrants” arrived in mid‑August under a U.S. agreement that could reach up to 250 people. Details on identities and criminal histories weren’t disclosed. Rwanda says the group is in IOM‑linked accommodation; four intend to stay. Washington referred questions to Kigali. AP NewsReuters

Uganda’s on‑again deal. On August 20, a Ugandan official denied any U.S. deportee pact; the ministry confirmed an agreement the next day, with conditions excluding people with criminal records and unaccompanied minors and indicating a preference for African nationals. Reuters+1

Eswatini and South Sudan precedents. The U.S. sent five men to Eswatini in July; they are being held in solitary confinement “in transit,” with no timeline for repatriation. Earlier in July, eight men were flown to South Sudan after weeks in U.S. custody at a base in Djibouti. Both countries have poor detention records and ongoing rights concerns. AP News+1

Litigation snapshot (D.V.D. v. DHS). A Massachusetts district court certified a nationwide class and ordered notice plus a meaningful chance to raise CAT fears before any third‑country removal. On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed that order pending appeal, and DHS simultaneously issued a March 30 “Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals” that allows removals without additional process when State deems diplomatic assurances “credible.” Government counsel has nevertheless told the Court—this term—that DHS must give notice and an opportunity to assert fear before third‑country removal. Catholic Legal Immigration NetworkAILANational Immigration Litigation Alliance+1iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com

Policy accelerator inside DHS/ICE. A February 18 internal directive instructed officers to revisit non‑detained dockets—including those with INA withholding or CAT deferral—for re‑detention and third‑country viability. Post‑stay implementation guidance tells ERO to follow the March 30 memo. In practice, this means surprise custody at check‑ins and compressed timelines. Catholic Legal Immigration NetworkNational Immigration Litigation Allianceiptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com

BIA narrows CAT. In Matter of A‑A‑F‑V‑, 29 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2025), the Board reversed an IJ’s grant of CAT to a bisexual Salvadoran “criminal deportee,” holding harsh prison conditions, even amid a state of exception, didn’t meet CAT’s “specific intent” standard; the Attorney General later designated it as precedent. Two companion July precedents (E‑Z‑; S‑S‑) likewise tighten the screws. Expect heavier headwinds on “torture via detention” theories. Department of JusticeCatholic Legal Immigration Network

Iranian‑national cases moving. AP documented arrests of Iranian residents with decades in the U.S.; DHS touted “national security” sweeps without specifics. Separately, Reza Zavvar, an Iranian man who arrived in 1985 and holds a 2000s withholding order to Iran, received a DHS notice of intent to remove him to Australia or Romania—countries with which he has no ties. Australian officials said they’d received no request. AP NewsABC

Third‑country removals of Iranians are not hypothetical. ICE has previously used the U.S.–Canada Safe Third Country framework to remove an unlawfully present Iranian national who was a Canadian permanent resident. That case shows the government’s willingness to leverage any available acceptance channel—even when the country isn’t the person’s nationality. ICE

Conditions in Receiving Countries

Rwanda. Civil and political rights remain sharply restricted; HRW details transnational repression. Rwanda has also been accused of backing M23 in eastern Congo, where massacres were reported this month—hardly confidence‑building for a “safety” destination dependent on opaque assurances. Human Rights Watch+1Reuters

Uganda. The 2023 Anti‑Homosexuality Act has unleashed state‑enabled abuse of LGBTQ+ people; arbitrary arrests and ill‑treatment persist. The State Department’s 2024 report lists credible incidents of torture and enforced disappearances. These conditions multiply risk for Iranian LGBTQ+ deportees. The GuardianState.gov

South Sudan. Conflict, arbitrary detention, and torture by security services are well‑documented. The capacity to safeguard non‑nationals transferred under a U.S. deal is questionable. Human Rights Watch

Eswatini. Absolute monarchy with a record of cracking down on dissent; AP confirms U.S. transferees are in solitary confinement. Human Rights WatchAP News

Strategic Solutions (Tools & Tactics)

  1. Force the fear screen—on the right country. If ICE identifies Country X for removal, state in writing that you fear persecution/torture in Country X and request a reasonable‑fear/CAT screening on that country. DHS represented to the Supreme Court that it must provide notice and an opportunity to raise fear before a third‑country removal; use their words. Supreme Court

  2. Paper the record fast. Bring (a) a short declaration tailored to Country X; (b) targeted country‑conditions exhibits (HRW/Amnesty/State Dept); (c) evidence of sur place activity (e.g., protests, social media) that the UK Home Office and EUAA recognize as increasing risk on return to Iran—use that logic to show vulnerability in any onward refoulement scenario. GOV.UKEuropean Union Agency for Asylum

  3. File locally, move immediately. If detained at a check‑in, counsel should file habeas/TRO in the district of initial detention to preserve venue and challenge removal without process; cite the March 30 memo and the class‑cert order in D.V.D. as context. Pair with an I‑246 Stay of Removal at the local ERO. Catholic Legal Immigration NetworkNational Immigration Litigation Alliance

  4. Attack “assurances.” DHS’s March 30 memo claims “credible” diplomatic assurances can shortcut process. Counter with record evidence: Rwanda’s repression and DRC involvement; Uganda’s anti‑LGBTQ+ regime; Eswatini’s solitary confinement of transferees; South Sudan’s widespread torture—plus the DOJ/BIA line of cases warning against speculative chains unless each link is “more likely than not.” iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.comHuman Rights Watch+1ReutersThe GuardianAP NewsDepartment of Justice

  5. Name safer alternatives. Recent reporting suggests Rwanda (case‑by‑case vetting, cap ~250) is currently prioritized; Uganda indicates a regional/“African nationals” preference; Eswatini/South Sudan have accepted small numbers (often labeled “violent offenders”). The record does not show Australia agreeing to accept U.S. deportees. Where feasible, propose a country with lawful status or family ties (e.g., Canada permanent residence via STCA precedent), or a country that affirmatively agrees in writing to grant legal status. Reuters+2Reuters+2AP NewsABCICE

  6. Know the law you’ll cite. Removal to a new country is permitted only if removal to each previously designated country is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible,” and never where §1231(b)(3) (withholding) or CAT would be violated. CAT orders are reviewable—including factual challenges—under Nasrallah v. Barr (2020). Supreme Court+1Legal Information Institute

  7. Resources. Practitioner materials from CLINIC, NILA/NIPNLG, and NWIRP are tracking D.V.D. compliance and field tactics (including how to counter “stipulations to removal” presented in detention). Catholic Legal Immigration NetworkNational Immigration Project+1

Iranian Focus

Risk profile on return to Iran is acute. HRW’s 2025 chapter and Amnesty’s 2024/25 report document systematic torture, unfair trials, and cruel punishments, including amputation. UN experts called amputation “torture, plain and simple.” Activists, converts, and diaspora critics face transnational repression and reprisals. State.govAmnesty InternationalHuman Rights Watch

Chain‑refoulement vectors are real. Regional practice shows Turkey and Armenia have deported or threatened to deport Iranian dissidents to Iran; Iran has kidnapped opponents abroad. For an Iranian with CAT deferral to Iran, removal to a third country with a record of refoulement or security cooperation with Tehran carries a non‑trivial risk of onward return—exactly the chain CAT seeks to prevent. Turkish MinuteIranWire

U.S. enforcement tilt. AP reports stepped‑up ICE arrests of Iranians after U.S. strikes on Iran; DHS declined to say how many. The Zavvar case—threatened removal to Australia or Romania—illustrates how far “any willing country” logic can stretch. If you represent an Iranian client, assume third‑country options will be floated and pre‑build a Country‑X risk packet. Federal Judge Blocks Expanded Deportation Powers as CAT Recipients Face New Third-Country Threat – CandidViews,   AP NewsABC

Broader Analysis

DHS is exploiting a statutory backwater—8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)—that allows removal to a “third country” only after closer options are deemed “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” Pair that with diplomatic assurances and a Supreme Court stay that lifted prophylactic notice requirements, and you get the current pressure cooker. But nothing in §1231(b) authorizes refoulement: both INA §1231(b)(3) and CAT are “Notwithstanding” clauses. And Nasrallah keeps an appellate backstop for CAT factual review. The practical squeeze now comes from the Board’s precedents—A‑A‑F‑V‑ et al.—which constrict “torture via detention” claims while DHS races people onto planes with 24‑hour (or even 6‑hour) notice when it says assurances exist. That is a recipe for chain‑refoulement unless counsel forces individualized analysis for the actual country of removal—every time. Supreme Court+1Department of JusticeThe Washington Post

_________________________________________________________________________________

Citations (selected, with pinpoint cites)

  • AP: “Rwanda says 7 deportees arrived from the US …” (Aug. 28, 2025). AP News

  • Reuters: “Uganda says it has agreed with US to take people …” (Aug. 21, 2025). Reuters

  • Reuters: “Rwanda reached deal with US to take up to 250 migrants …” (Aug. 4, 2025). Reuters

  • AP explainer: “What to know after the US deports more migrants to Africa” (Aug. 28, 2025). AP News

  • AP: “Men deported by the US to Eswatini … solitary confinement …” (July 2025). AP News

  • DHS v. D.V.D., Opp’n to Stay (U.S. June 4, 2025), pp. 7–10 (statutory framework; notice & fear). Supreme Court

  • CLINIC: “Updates on Third Country Removals and the D.V.D. Litigation” (June 26, 2025). Catholic Legal Immigration Network

  • ICE implementation note (July 9, 2025) referencing the March 30 memo. iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com

  • Matter of A‑A‑F‑V‑, 29 I&N Dec. 118, 120–21 (BIA 2025) (specific intent; lawful sanctions). Department of Justice

  • AP: “After decades in the US, Iranians arrested …” (June 28, 2025). AP News

  • ABC (Australia): “Why is the Trump administration threatening to deport this Iranian man to Australia?” (Aug. 6–7, 2025). ABC

  • ICE/ERO: “Safe Third Country Agreement to remove Iranian national” (Dec. 28, 2023). ICE

  • HRW: World Report 2025 – Iran; Amnesty: Iran: Human rights 2024/25; UN experts on amputations as torture (Apr. 2025). Human Rights WatchAmnesty InternationalUN Human Rights

  • HRW: World Reports 2025 — Rwanda, Uganda, South Sudan (2025 chapters). Human Rights Watch+2Human Rights Watch+2

 

 

Legal note: This is for information, not individual legal advice. If detention or notice of third‑country removal is imminent, treat it as an emergency: call counsel, assert fear in writing for the named country, and move for immediate judicial relief.

Discover more from CandidViews

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.