Democratic republic of the congo

On April 17, 2026, the U.S. government forcibly transferred fifteen people—seven women and eight men—to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) under an undisclosed agreement between the two countries that reportedly provides for the transfer of 50 to 100 people per month. 

Of the fifteen people transferred, seven were from Peru, five from Colombia, and three from Ecuador. All had been granted withholding or deferral of removal to their home countries by U.S. immigration judges who found that they would likely be persecuted or tortured there. One Colombian woman, who was tortured by police officers in Colombia and granted protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States, was sent to the DRC after being held by ICE for over a year in detention and a failed attempt to deport her to Mexico. A Colombian man sent to the DRC had lived in the United States for eight years and is now separated from his wife and four children in Florida. 

In another case, after a federal judge ordered the release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody of a woman granted U.S. humanitarian protection who had been detained for 14 months, ICE took her out of her Texas home under false pretenses and rearrested her, transferred her to different detention facilities, held her incommunicado for two days, gave her a yellow fever vaccine, and summarily deported to the DRC despite her claims of fear. She told the BBC: 

“They locked me in a room, they didn't give me food or water. It was very cold…I didn't appear in the system because I was never prosecuted…I told them I was afraid because of the insecurity and they didn't respond, and well, here I am, in Congo. How do I feel now? Well, I feel that our human rights have been violated…There’s a lot of misinformation on social media; they're saying we're criminals and that we deserve what's happening to us. That’s not right. The lack of information here and not knowing what's going to happen to us is affecting us emotionally and psychologically…We feel completely adrift. We don’t know what’s going to happen to us.”

The flight to the DRC lasted over twenty-five hours, during which time the people were restrained at the wrists and ankles and given little to eat. “They treated us like slaves,” one Colombian man recounted.  

According to an early April press release about the agreement from the government of the DRC, it retains full control over decisions concerning admission to its territory, conditions of residence, monitoring, withdrawal of temporary status, and mechanisms for the return or removal of the individuals concerned. It further specifies that the logistical and technical support for this operation will be provided by the United States through specialized agencies for the movement of people worldwide, a reference to the International Organization for Migration, and that no financial burden will be borne by the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s public treasury to implement the agreement. The U.S. State Department has awarded the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees funding in the DRC for 2026 “in support of third country national arrangement negotiations.”  

On the day of the arrival of the 15 people, the government of the DRC published another press release saying that their stay in the country would be strictly transitory and temporary and paid for by the United States. They have since been given permission to stay for three months and are currently living at a hotel. A Reuters journalist seeking to meet ​the migrants was turned away and the migrants have been urged by security there to remain inside. The hotel suffers from power outages, limited drinking water, rodents, and mosquitos. Some of the individuals have fallen ill. The International Organization for Migration is offering them “assisted voluntary return” to their home countries (paid for by the U.S. State Department). Given the insecurity and poor conditions in the DRC, their inability to speak the language, lack of knowledge of the country, and fear of return to their home countries, they feel trapped. 

Lawyers and human rights activists in the DRC, Peru, and the United States have highlighted the way the agreement and the transfers pose a risk of refoulement and violate international law. There have been protests in Kinshasa opposing the deportations from the United States and opposition politicians in the DRC have condemned the agreement.

The forced transfers to DRC are part of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) broader practice of deporting individuals with final orders of removal, particularly those granted withholding of removal or CAT protection, to third countries. In these cases, DHS sends people to third countries that were never identified as potential destinations during their immigration proceedings and without meaningful prior notice or an opportunity for the individuals to present a fear claim specific to the third country. This practice denies people due process and creates the risk that they will be sent to persecution and torture. It violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, Constitutional due process protections, and international treaty obligations codified in U.S. law including the prohibition on refoulement. This practice was challenged before a U.S. federal district court in Massachusetts in D.V.D.  v. DHS, leading the court to enjoin third country removals of people with final orders without notice or opportunity to raise a fear claim, but the Supreme Court stayed the injunction in June 2025 pending a decision on the merits. On February 25, 2026, the same federal district court declared unlawful and set aside DHS’s third-country removal policy, holding that DHS cannot deport individuals under final removal orders to countries not designated in their removal proceedings without providing meaningful notice and a genuine opportunity to seek protection from persecution or torture. The court rejected DHS’s position that it could transfer people to “so-called ‘third countries’” so long as it lacked specific prior knowledge that harm awaited them, explaining pointedly: “It is not fine, nor is it legal.” The Trump administration has appealed and the decision is stayed while litigation in the case continues. In the meantime, it is forcibly transferring people with withholding of removal and CAT protection to DRC and other third countries. 

The agreement between the two countries was ​negotiated as the United States sought to implement a regional peace deal and secure access to critical minerals. The deal also was finalized in the wake of an announced U.S.-DRC strategic health partnership and after the U.S. shifted its geopolitical position to sanction Rwanda for support of MS23, an armed group responsible for human rights abuses and a mass displacement in eastern DRC. The deportations on April 17 occurred just before the DRC announced the establishment of a paramilitary force to guard mines, which is backed by the United States.