The federal government has ordered a halt to a controversial tactic that for more than four months disrupted the asylum system. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys who prosecute cases in immigration court were sent an email directing them to stop filing motions to terminate asylum cases in the U.S. by designating asylum-seekers for removal to so-called “third countries” where they would apply for protection. Those countries are typically not the applicants’ home countries and they often have no real ties to the people being sent there.
The wave of such motions, known as “pretermissions,” began after a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision on Oct. 31. That ruling, grounded in agreements between the U.S. and other countries, declared some people ineligible to seek asylum in the United States. Attorneys say partner countries such as Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras or Uganda do not provide meaningful protection, have weak asylum systems, or are themselves experiencing internal strife.
The practice was first used under the Donald Trump administration, which removed roughly 1,000 people to Guatemala this way. It was paused under the Biden administration, and then resumed when Trump returned to office. Lawsuits challenging the tactic are currently pending in federal court. Federal courts in Washington state, particularly the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have historically issued many rulings protecting immigrants’ rights, for example blocking the “remain in Mexico” policy. Their more liberal bent reflects the politics of the region. It is unclear whether the ongoing litigation influenced the decision to pause filing new motions, or whether the pause is temporary or permanent.
The ICE email does not explain the reasons for the halt. It also says motions already filed need not be withdrawn, leaving thousands of existing removal orders in place. According to independent research organizations such as the Migration Policy Institute and the Center for Immigration Research at the University of Washington, known for objective analysis, ICE attorneys filed more than 2,000 such motions just in Washington state, most in the Seattle immigration court. That may reflect Washington’s status as a sanctuary state, its large tech companies that attract immigrants, active advocacy groups, and geographic location that facilitates arrival from Asia and Latin America.
Immigration judges nationwide, including in Seattle, granted the vast majority of these motions. The Seattle immigration court, like all U.S. immigration courts, is part of the Department of Justice and handles removal and asylum cases within its geographic jurisdiction, which includes the state of Washington. From Nov. 1 through Feb. 28, most removal orders directed people to be sent to Ecuador (371 orders) and Honduras (118 orders). The BIA decision sets a high bar for exceptions: to avoid being sent, an applicant must prove they are more likely than not to face torture or persecution in the designated third country.
But attorneys note that in practice they do not know anyone in Washington who has yet been removed to a third country under such an order. Immigration advocacy in Seattle is vigorous, with groups like the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and university legal clinics active in the area. Such removals to third countries are rare here because they happen more often at the southern border, while Seattle’s caseload focuses on asylum claims by people already living in the U.S. There are serious practical obstacles: some partner countries have set caps on the number of arrivals they will accept. For example, Honduras agreed to take only 240 people over two years, while more than 3,000 people nationwide have already received orders to be sent there.
Even if difficult to carry out, these removal orders have profound psychological effects. Lawyers describe conversations with clients about losing the right to seek asylum in the U.S. as among the hardest of their careers. The procedure for deciding such motions has been criticized as unfairly shortened. Former judges say a “streamlined hearing” is not enough when life-or-death decisions are at stake and people need to present evidence and witnesses.
Demographic factors in Washington, including large diasporas from Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam and Somalia, create support networks for newcomers but also shape asylum flows and court dockets. Geographically the state shares a long border with Canada and has Pacific ports, which can facilitate unauthorized entry. The local ICE field office in Seattle reports to national leadership, but in the sanctuary state of Washington its cooperation with local law enforcement is limited, which may reduce enforcement activity compared with other regions.
Based on: U.S. pauses tactic to deport asylum-seekers to ‘third countries’