It’s the El Salvador Deportation Flight All Over Again—but This Time to South Sudan

For months, President Donald Trump and his administration have been stress-testing our legal system, taking seemingly unconstitutional actions right and left—and judges have blocked many of them by issuing nationwide injunctions. But last week, the Supreme Court weighed a move that would make it easier for Trump to do whatever he wants: restricting or abolishing lower courts’ ability to issue injunctions that apply nationally. And this week, the justices lifted an injunction that was preventing federal authorities from revoking the legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants, essentially putting a bright red target on their backs for deportation. 0:06 / 0:15 Meanwhile, the administration reportedly carried out another lawless deportation flight—but this time, a small group of migrants was flown to South Sudan, a country on the brink of civil war that is experiencing a dire humanitarian crisis. A judge declared that those actions violated his order, which had banned deportations to third countries and required the federal government to adhere to due process laws. Here’s the immigration news we’re keeping an eye on this week: The Trump Administration Sent Migrants to South Sudan, in Apparent Defiance of a Judge’s Orders Roughly two weeks after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, of Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from deporting immigrants to third countries—countries that are not a foreign national’s place of origin—the president did it anyway. During a hearing on Wednesday, Murphy concluded, “The government’s actions in this case are unquestionably violative of this court’s order.” Advertisement That hearing was the culmination of a chaotic 24 hours. Starting on Tuesday morning, at least two men, one from Myanmar and the other from Vietnam, were deported to South Sudan, having received notice from the government only one day beforehand, according to court documents. Their lawyers say they were not given a chance to raise credible-fear claims, and one man was given a removal notice in English, despite having limited proficiency in the language. There also appeared to be confusion about where the men would be deported. “I fear that my husband and his group, which consist of people from Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, Korea and Mexico are being sent to South Africa or Sudan against their will,” wrote the wife of the man from Vietnam, in an email to her attorney. This action flies in the face of Murphy’s April injunction, which specifically banned the federal government from deporting migrants to any country besides their home country without due process. Just two weeks ago, the judge issued another warning to the Trump administration not to attempt to deport any migrants to third countries without first giving written notice “in a language the non-citizen can understand as well as a meaningful opportunity for the non-citizen to raise fear-based claims for protection.” Upon learning about the new deportations to South Sudan, Murphy held an emergency hearing Tuesday evening at which he pressed government lawyers for information on where the migrants were being taken. “Where is the plane?” he asked. “I’m told that that information is classified, and I am told that the final destination is also classified,” said Elianis N. Perez, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, according to the New York Times. Perez insisted that the government had not violated Murphy’s orders because the man deported did not raise a credible-fear claim. Advertisement The judge instructed Perez to tell everyone involved in the deportation operation, from the pilot to Department of Homeland Security officials, that they could face criminal contempt charges if his orders were violated. Then, during Wednesday’s hearing, Murphy ordered government attorneys to submit a declaration by the end of the day clarifying whether South Sudan’s government would be willing to send back U.S. deportees if they expressed credible-fear claims. The Supreme Court Gave the All Clear to Deport Venezuelans On Monday morning, the Supreme Court quietly made a hugely consequential immigration decision via its shadow docket. With the click of a button, it effectively pushed 350,000 lawful Venezuelan immigrants into undocumented legal status when it published a brief order that allows DHS to revoke their protected status, effective immediately. “It’s a deeply upsetting decision because, as far as I can tell, this judicial action strips the most noncitizens of their immigration status in modern U.S. history,” Elora Mukherjee, a clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, told me. “For the Supreme Court to do it with no reasoning at all, without oral argument or full briefing, it is shocking.” The justices were responding to an emergency appeal request by the Trump administration in a legal battle over Temporary Protected Status, a program that admits foreign nationals of countries that the federal government designates as unsafe due to ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, epidemics, or other extraordinary conditions. Those who qualify receive a work permit and are given protection from deportation—but soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to “terminate all categorical parole programs,” including TPS. This case was considered under the Supreme Court’s shadow docket—a process, usually reserved for extreme emergencies, in which no briefings or hearings are held. Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice who indicated she would deny the application to take the Trump administration’s case on this issue. In a dissent from a different shadow docket order this past week, Jackson laid out her objections: “As a practical matter,” she wrote, “it is plainly prudent to reserve our emergency docket for applicants who demonstrate that they truly need our help now.” Advertisement Recommended for You Help! Before My Friend Got Married, I Warned Her. Years Later, I Was Allowed an “I Told You So.” I Accidentally Just Found Out My Family’s True Thoughts About a Major Parenting Decision We Made. It Was Brutal. I Discovered Something in My Husband’s Underwear Drawer. Uh, I Think He Has Something Big He Needs to Tell Me. After Noem announced in January that DHS would begin revoking TPS for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, advocacy group National TPS Alliance immediately filed suit. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, of California, ordered Noem to halt the revocation plan, holding that it was motivated by “unconstitutional animus.” The Trump administration promptly asked SCOTUS to intervene. Though the justices allowed Noem to move forward with terminating TPS for Venezuelans, they offered no explanation for their decision, leaving the lower courts without guidance as the case continues. In a Surprise Decision, the Supreme Court Says the Trump Administration Violated the Constitution With El Salvador Deportation Flights On Friday evening, the high court published a decision that extends an injunction blocking the president from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants, a decisive blow to a key component of his mass-deportation agenda. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is a wartime law that the president invoked back in March as the basis for summary deportations without due process. He used the act to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to a mega-prison in El Salvador, accusing them of being gang members without providing any evidence. On March 15, over 200 men were deported under the law, in violation of U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg’s order. In April, the Supreme Court overturned Boasberg’s order, holding that the migrants had sued in the wrong court. But SCOTUS also unanimously affirmed that migrants must be given due process before they are expelled under the Alien Enemies Act. Related From Slate Mark Joseph Stern Donald Trump’s Attempt to Destroy Due Process Ran Into a Wall at the Supreme Court Read More In the wake of that decision, a group of Venezuelan men in immigration custody and at risk of immediate deportation sued the Trump administration to prevent their removal under the act. They took their request up to SCOTUS, which responded with a short order, released at 1 a.m., instructing the government to halt the planned deportations. Last Friday, the justices followed up with a full decision in which they affirmed that under the Fifth Amendment, immigrants are entitled to due process in removal proceedings and “must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.” Up to this point, the government had been giving migrants 24 hours’ notice ahead of their deportation to El Salvador. These eleventh-hour notices, the court noted, were “devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal,” and therefore failed to comply with the Fifth Amendment. The majority left it to the lower courts to determine exactly what process must be given to migrants but made it clear that the government’s current practices fall far short of constitutional standards. It declined to answer the broader question of whether the Alien Enemies Act can even be used to deport alleged members of a gang, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh urged the court to answer that question soon. Trump Starts Billing Immigrants Who Lack Permanent Legal Status The Trump administration has begun fining immigrants who lack permanent legal status for remaining in the country after receiving a removal order, a tactic it used during the president’s first term in office. So far, more than 4,000 people have received notices for these financial penalties, which total over $500 million, according to Reuters. The Immigration and Nationality Act does grant Immigration and Customs Enforcement the authority to impose fines on immigrants who ignore removal orders, but the penalty cannot exceed $500 a day. One of Trump’s executive orders also instructed DHS to collect “all fines and penalties” from those who lack permanent legal status, but in March the agency claimed that it would charge “$998 per day if you received a final order of removal and stayed.” According to immigration attorneys who spoke to Reuters, the federal government has rarely invoked the power to fine immigrants, with a New York–based immigration lawyer remarking that one of his clients, who has lived in the U.S. for 25 years, has received a $1.8 million fine. “At first you look at something like this and think it’s fake,” he said. “I’ve never seen a client receive anything like this.” An immigrant named Maria, who lives in Florida, also received a $1.8 million fine, telling CBS News, “Ever since that day I live with anxiety. … I can’t sleep. … I don’t feel.” She added, “I don’t want to go back.” She said she has lived in the U.S. for two decades and has three children who are all U.S. citizens. Her attorney plans to appeal the fine.

US must keep control of migrants sent to South Sudan in case removals were unlawful, judge rules

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that U.S. officials must retain custody and control of migrants apparently removed to South Sudan in case he orders their removals were unlawful. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts issued the ruling late Tuesday after an emergency hearing, after attorneys for immigrants said the Trump administration appears to have begun deporting people from Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan — despite a court order restricting removals to other countries. Murphy said the government must “maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful.” While Murphy left the details to the government’s discretion, he said he expects the migrants “will be treated humanely.” Attorneys for the migrants told the judge that immigration authorities may have sent up to a dozen people from several countries to Africa, which they argue violates a court order saying people must get a “meaningful opportunity” to argue that sending them to a country outside their homeland would threaten their safety. Related Stories Judge says US violated order on deportations to third countries Judge says US violated order on deportations to third countries A look at South Sudan, where the US is accused of quietly sending migrants A look at South Sudan, where the US is accused of quietly sending migrants Trump says US will pay immigrants in country illegally $1,000 to leave Trump says US will pay immigrants in country illegally $1,000 to leave The apparent removal of one man from Myanmar was confirmed in an email from an immigration official in Texas, according to court documents. He was informed only in English, a language he does not speak well, and his attorneys learned of the plan hours before his deportation flight, they said. A woman also reported that her husband from Vietnam and up to 10 other people were flown to Africa Tuesday morning, attorneys from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance wrote. The attorneys asked Murphy for an emergency court order to prevent the deportations. Murphy, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, previously found that any plans to deport people to Libya without notice would “clearly” violate his ruling, which also applies to people who have otherwise exhausted their legal appeals. Murphy said in his Tuesday order that U.S. officials must appear in court Wednesday to identify the migrants impacted, address when and how they learned they would be removed to a third country, and what opportunity they were given to raise a fear-based claim. He also ruled that the government must provide information about the whereabouts of the migrants apparently already removed. The Department of Homeland Security and the White House did not immediately return messages seeking comment. South Sudan’s police spokesperson Major General James Monday Enoka told The Associated Press Wednesday that no migrants had arrived in the country and that if they arrive, they would be investigated and again “re-deported to their correct country” if found not to be South Sudanese. Some countries do not accept deportations from the United States, which has led the Trump administration to strike agreements with other countries, including Panama, to house them. The Trump administration has sent Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime law hotly contested in the courts. South Sudan has suffered repeated waves of violence since gaining independence from Sudan in 2011 amid hopes it could use its large oil reserves to bring prosperity to a region long battered by poverty. Just weeks ago, the country’s top U.N. official warned that fighting between forces loyal to the president and a vice president threatened to spiral again into full-scale civil war. The situation is “darkly reminiscent of the 2013 and 2016 conflicts, which took over 400,000 lives,” Nicholas Haysom, head of the almost 20,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping mission. The U.S. State Department’s annual report on South Sudan, published in April 2024, says “significant human rights issues” include arbitrary killings, disappearances, torture or inhumane treatment by security forces and extensive violence based on gender and sexual identity. The U.S. Homeland Security Department has given Temporary Protected Status to a small number of South Sudanese already living in the United States since the country was founded in 2011, shielding them from deportation because conditions were deemed unsafe for return. Secretary Kristi Noem recently extended those protections to November to allow for a more thorough review. South Sudan’s diplomatic relations with the U.S grew tense in April when a deportation row led to the revocation of visas and a ban on South Sudanese nationals. The U.S is one of the biggest donors to South Sudan’s humanitarian aid programs with the total funding in 2024 standing at over $640 million, according to the U.S embassy in South Sudan. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Trump administration acknowledges another error in a high-profile deportation

When a Guatemalan man sued the Trump administration in March for deporting him to Mexico despite a fear of persecution, immigration officials had a response: The man told them himself he was not afraid to be sent there. But in a late Friday court filing, the administration acknowledged that this claim — a key plank of the government’s response to a high-stakes class action lawsuit — was based on erroneous information. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials now say they have no record of anyone being told by the man, identified only by the initials O.C.G. in court papers, that he was unafraid of going to Mexico. The error, they say, was attributable to a “software tool” known as ICE’s “ENFORCE alien removal module” that tracks individual deportation cases and allows staff to insert comments. “Upon further investigation … ICE was unable to identify an officer or officers who asked O.C.G. if he feared a return to Mexico,” said Brian Ortega, assistant field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, in a sworn statement to the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit. The mistake may have been costly: The judge overseeing the lawsuit said last month he did not order the administration to facilitate O.C.G.’s immediate return from Mexico in part because of the dispute. Instead, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee based in Massachusetts, ordered expedited fact-finding, which helped unearth the mistake. ICE’s acknowledgment is the latest in a string of errors that have led judges to fault the administration for attempting to carry out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign at a breakneck pace — often at the expense of due process. It occurred in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man — accused of gang ties by the administration — who was hurriedly deported to his home country in violation of a court order that found he could be a target for violence by a local gang. It also occurred in the case of Daniel Lozano-Camargo, a Venezuelan man deported to El Salvador in March despite a court-approved settlement requiring the administration to adjudicate his asylum claim first. Sebastian Gorka on deportations: 'The priority right now is the worst of the worst' SharePlay Video Many of those targeted by Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime power the administration has wielded to speed deportations of those the government deems “terrorists” or “gang members — have claimed they were erroneously identified as members of a violent Venezuelan gang. The Supreme Court on Friday blocked Trump from another round of Alien Enemies Act deportations, warning that the administration had failed to provide a meaningful chance for those targeted to contest their designation as gang members. O.C.G.’s case is part of a separate lawsuit against the administration’s decision to rely on so-called “third countries” for deportation. Under the administration’s policy, if an immigrant’s home country won’t accept them, or they have a legitimate fear of returning, authorities may send them to an alternate country instead. However, Murphy has blocked such deportations without notice, saying those deported under the “third country” policy must have a similar opportunity to raise challenges and legitimate fears of torture or persecution. O.C.G.’s case was one of the original factors in Murphy’s decision. The man said he fled Guatemala in April 2024 to escape persecution. He claims that while crossing through Mexico, he was targeted for being gay, raped and held captive until his sister paid a ransom. He then arrived in the United States. In February 2025, a judge granted him withholding of removal to Guatemala, finding his fear of persecution to be legitimate. But the administration quickly deported him to Mexico without notice, his attorneys said. In his ruling blocking third-country deportations without notice, Murphy referenced the administration’s claim that O.C.G. had told ICE he was unafraid to return to Mexico, but he said he didn’t buy it because it was based on hearsay from Ortega. However, because of the dispute, Murphy declined to immediately order the government to facilitate O.C.G.’s return from Mexico. It’s unclear whether the admission from the Trump administration will alter his thinking. The administration has appealed Murphy’s order to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with Murphy on Friday and rejected the government’s effort to quickly lift the block on third-country deportations.

Trump administration welcomes 59 white South Africans as refugees

DULLES, Virginia (AP) — The Trump administration on Monday welcomed a group of 59 white South Africans as refugees, saying they face discrimination and violence at home, which the country’s government strongly denies. The decision to admit the Afrikaners also has raised questions from refugee advocates about why they were admitted when the Trump administration has suspended efforts to resettle people fleeing war and persecution who have gone through years of vetting. Many in the group from South Africa — including toddlers and other small children, even one walking barefoot in pajamas — held small American flags as two officials welcomed them to the United States in an airport hangar outside Washington. The South Africans were then leaving on other flights to various U.S. destinations. Young Afrikaner refugees from South Africa holding American flags arrive, Monday, May 12, 2025, at Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) Young Afrikaner refugees from South Africa holding American flags arrive, Monday, May 12, 2025, at Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) A group of 49 Afrikaners had been expected, but the State Department said Monday that 59 had arrived. “I want you all to know that you are really welcome here and that we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said. President Donald Trump told reporters earlier Monday that he’s admitting them as refugees because of the “genocide that’s taking place.” He said that in post-apartheid South Africa, white farmers are “being killed” and he plans to address the issue with South African leadership next week. Related Stories US to accept white South African refugees while other programs remain paused US to accept white South African refugees while other programs remain paused Trump is bringing white South Africans to the US as refugees, but what persecution are they facing? Trump is bringing white South Africans to the US as refugees, but what persecution are they facing? White South Africans demonstrate in support of U.S. President Donald Trump in front of the U.S. embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday, Feb. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay, File) Episcopal Church says it won’t help resettle white South Africans granted refugee status in US That characterization has been strongly disputed by South Africa’s government, experts and even the Afrikaner group AfriForum, which says farm attacks are not being taken seriously by the government. South Africa’s government says the U.S. allegations that the white minority Afrikaners are being persecuted are “completely false,” the result of misinformation and an inaccurate view of the country. It cited the fact that Afrikaners are among the richest and most successful people in the country. Afrikaner refugees from South Africa arrive, Monday, May 12, 2025, at Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) Afrikaner refugees from South Africa arrive, Monday, May 12, 2025, at Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) The view from South Africa Speaking at a business conference in Ivory Coast, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said Monday that he spoke with Trump recently and told him his administration had been fed false information by groups who were casting white people as victims because of efforts to right the historical wrongs of colonialism and South Africa’s previous apartheid system of forced racial segregation, which oppressed the Black majority. “I had a conversation with President Trump on the phone and he asked me, ‘What’s going on down there?’ and I told him that what you are being told by those people who are opposed to transformation back in South Africa is not true,” Ramaphosa said. Afrikaners make up South Africa’s largest white group and were the leaders of the apartheid government, which brutally enforced racial segregation for nearly 50 years before ending it in 1994. While South Africa has been largely successful in reconciling its many races, tensions between some Black political parties and some Afrikaner groups have remained. The Trump administration has falsely claimed white South Africans are having their land taken away by the government under a new expropriation law that promotes “racially discriminatory property confiscation.” No land has been expropriated. Trump has promoted the allegation that white farmers in South Africa are being killed on a large scale as far back as 2018 during his first term. Conservative commentators have promoted the allegation about a genocide against white farmers, and South African-born Trump ally Elon Musk has posted on social media that some politicians in the country are “actively promoting white genocide.” South Africa has extremely high levels of violent crime, and white farmers have been killed in rural Afrikaner communities. It has been a problem for decades. The government condemns those killings but says they are part of the country’s problems with crime. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

FBI ordered to prioritize immigration, as DOJ scales back white collar cases

WASHINGTON, May 12 (Reuters) - The FBI ordered agents on Monday to devote more time to immigration enforcement and scale back investigating white-collar crime, four people familiar with the matter told Reuters, as the Justice Department issued new guidance on what white-collar cases will be prioritized. In a series of meetings, FBI agents were told by their field offices they would need to start devoting about one third of their time to helping the Trump administration crack down on illegal immigration. The Reuters Tariff Watch newsletter is your daily guide to the latest global trade and tariff news. Sign up here. Advertisement · Scroll to continue Report This Ad Pursuing white-collar cases, they were told, will be deprioritized for at least the remainder of 2025, said the people, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. Reuters could not immediately determine how many field offices were informed of the change, or whether it would apply to agents across the country. An FBI spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. The orders came on the same day that Matthew Galeotti, the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, issued new guidance to prosecutors that scales back the scope of white-collar cases historically pursued by the department and orders prosecutors to "minimize the length and collateral impact" of such investigations. Advertisement · Scroll to continue Report This Ad Immigration enforcement has largely not been the purview of the Justice Department's law enforcement agencies in the past. But as President Donald Trump has stepped up an immigration crackdown, thousands of federal law enforcement officials from multiple agencies have been enlisted to take on new work as immigration enforcers, pulling crime-fighting resources away from other areas. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have also previously announced they will scale back efforts to prosecute certain kinds of white-collar offenses, including public corruption, foreign bribery, kleptocracy and foreign influence. As part of those efforts, the Criminal Division has also been reviewing corporate monitorships that companies were required to install as a condition of settling criminal cases. Several of them have since been ended early, while others have continued. In Monday's memo, Galeotti laid out the categories of cases that will be prioritized to include health care fraud, trade and customs fraud, elder securities fraud, complex money laundering including "Chinese Money Laundering Organizations," and cases against financial gatekeepers who enable terrorists, transnational criminal organizations and cartels, among others. He said the department will also update its whistleblower award pilot program to encourage tips on cases that lead to forfeiture, such as those involving cartels and transnational criminal organizations, violations of federal immigration law, corporate sanctions offenses, procurement fraud, trade, tariff and customs fraud, and providing material support to terrorists. The memo also instructs prosecutors to carefully consider whether corporate misconduct "warrants federal criminal prosecution." "Prosecution of individuals, as well as civil and administrative remedies directed at corporations, are often appropriate to address low-level corporate misconduct and vindicate U.S. interests," the memo says. It also orders prosecutors to only require companies to hire independent monitors if they cannot be expected to implement a corporate compliance program "without such heavy-handed intervention."

Gallego unveils immigration plan

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) released a new immigration plan Monday, wading into a contentious debate as President Trump pushes to crack down at the border. The plan from Gallego follows a similar pattern of other past proposals, promoting a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and others in the U.S. while pushing for expanded personnel and enforcement at the border. “We don’t have to choose between border security and immigration reform. We can and should do both. Americans deserve the right to feel safe knowing their border is secure, but for decades, Congress has tried and failed to take action because politics got in the way. It’s time to push forward and enact a plan that works,” Gallego said in a statement. Under Gallego’s plan, Congress would fund increased hiring for Border Patrol agents as well as hiring other staff to handle processing and transportation of migrants. It doesn’t fully endorse Trump’s border wall but does call for some barriers. It would also establish a migration reserve corps to help deal with “unexpected migrant surges” that would require more personnel. It would also place new limitations on asylum — a protection sought by many migrants who claim they are fleeing persecution or danger. Gallego’s plan would raise the standard to obtain asylum protections — which is something also sought by Republicans, who argue the protections should be harder to gain. He also calls for gradually phasing in use of E-Verify across the country, forcing business to ascertain whether employees are legally allowed to work in the U.S. His proposal seeks to address a yearslong backlog of such cases by augmenting the number of asylum officers and giving them the power to adjudicate claims — removing the matter from immigration court. To ease constraints on immigration, his plan would also provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, those brought to the U.S. as children, as well as spouses of citizens who do not yet have legal status. It would boost a number of caps on visas and green cards, with Gallego referencing “arbitrary” caps that limit the number of immigrants from certain countries. He also calls for increasing U.S. refugee processing — a program Trump has currently suspended. Finally, his plan nods to similar efforts by the Biden administration in igniting a “root causes” strategy that seeks to address factors prompting migration. Gallego calls for a Western Hemisphere engagement strategy, including creating more asylum capacity across Latin America and pushing for more “responsibility sharing” for taking on migrants and refugees. The Senate last year abandoned another immigration proposal that similarly would have paired increased funds at the border with streamlining some immigration pathways. The effort was almost immediately spiked by then-candidate Trump, undercutting GOP interest in the bill. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Why Asian and Mexican immigrants, moments away from being deported to Libya, never left the U.S.

A Filipino immigrant detained in Texas described being woken up at 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday by armed guards in tactical gear, being told he was being sent to Libya, and then waiting for hours on a bus at a military base outside a military plane, his lawyer said. The flight never took off and he was sent back to solitary confinement in the Texas facility along with the other 12 detainees, mostly from Asian countries, the immigrant’s lawyer, Johnny Sinodis, told NBC News. The immigrant requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation. The immigrants, including people from the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Mexico, would later learn that their attorneys filed an emergency motion after reports that the Trump administration had planned to send a group of immigrants to Libya. A federal judge then enforced a previous order Wednesday afternoon, halting deportations to third countries. Tin Nguyen, another immigration attorney whose client was aboard the bus, said that though the deportation was halted, many continue to be on edge over the possibility of being sent to a country that is unfamiliar to them and has been criticized for major human rights abuses. “Libya or El Salvador or Rwanda … it’s very scary for people,” Nguyen, who’s based in North Carolina, said. “People don’t know anything about these countries, and what they have heard about them is very terrifying.”

Appeals Court Denies Trump Request to Revoke 400,000 Migrants' Legal Status

Advertisement 0:07 By Gabe Whisnant Breaking News Editor Trust Project Icon Newsweek Is A Trust Project Member FOLLOW news article 10 Translate Afederal appeals court on Monday denied a request from President Donald Trump's administration to proceed with revoking temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela living in the United States. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, declined to stay a lower court ruling that blocked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from ending a two-year humanitarian parole program. The program was originally implemented under Trump's Democratic successor, President Joe Biden. Newsweek has reached out to DHS via email on Monday night for comment. Migrants in Mexico Migrants walk through Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico in an attempt to reach the U.S. border, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, the inauguration day of U.S. President Donald Trump. Associated Press Why It Matters The administration's move signaled a significant escalation of the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda, expanding efforts to increase deportations—including of noncitizens who had previously been granted legal permission to live and work in the United States. What to Know The court ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights advocates, who challenged a Department of Homeland Security decision to suspend several Biden-era parole programs. These programs had allowed migrants from countries such as Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the U.S. legally on a temporary basis. While the case was still pending, DHS announced in a March 25 notice published in the Federal Register that it planned to terminate the two-year parole previously granted to approximately 400,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) migrants. On April 25, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—blocked the agency's action. She ruled that DHS had improperly revoked parole and work authorization on a broad, categorical basis, without conducting the required individualized case-by-case review. She stated that the department's only justification for refusing to let the migrants' parole status expire naturally was rooted in a legal misinterpretation—specifically, an incorrect belief that doing so would prevent the agency from lawfully expediting their deportations. Read more Migrants Bipartisan Group of Former Judges Blasts Trump's 'Assault' on the Judiciary Trump's Border Czar Tom Homan Reacts to President's Alcatraz Remarks White House Offers To Pay Migrants $1,000 To Self-Deport Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to Allow DOGE to Access Social Security Data What People Are Saying Karen Tumlin, a lawyer whose immigrant rights group Justice Action Center pursued the case, shared the following statement with Newsweek, "We are relieved that the First Circuit panel denied the Trump administration's request to block the district court order that stopped the Trump administration's reckless and illegal attempt to strip nearly half a million people of their lawful immigration status, said Karen Tumlin, Founder and Director of Justice Action Center. "Our clients and class members are essential coworkers, life partners, and family members to others in the United States, and they have done everything the U.S. government has asked of them. Now the Trump administration needs to uphold its end of the bargain." DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek via email, "CHNV was an unlawful scheme to unleash over 530,000 poorly vetted aliens into America, fueling crime and stealing jobs—forcing our agents in the field to ignore rampant fraud. The Trump Administration is committed to restoring the rule of law to our immigration system. No lawsuit, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that." What's Next The Trump administration could now ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Trump administration weighs sending migrants to Libya and Rwanda, sources say

The Trump administration has discussed with Libya and Rwanda the possibility of sending migrants who have criminal records and are in the United States to those two countries, according to multiple sources familiar with the talks. The proposals mark a dramatic escalation in the administration’s push to deter people journeying to the United States and remove some of those already here to countries thousands of miles away, some of which have checkered pasts. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January directing top officials to facilitate international cooperation and agreements to send asylum seekers elsewhere. In addition to sending migrants with criminal records, Trump officials are also hoping to enter formal negotiations with Libya to strike a so-called safe third country agreement, which would allow the US to send asylum seekers apprehended at the US border to Libya, according to one of the sources. No decision has been made yet, and it’s unclear which nationalities would be eligible. ADVERTISING A State Department spokesperson said they do not discuss the details of diplomatic communications. The spokesperson added that the department is “working globally to implement the Trump Administration’s immigration policies.” CNN reached out to a representative for Libyan Gen. Saddam Haftar, who was in Washington for talks with officials this week, for comment. The State Department and a Libyan official said his meetings were not about deportations. “The meetings with the Libyan delegation in Washington this week were not about deportations,” a department spokesperson said. A Libyan official told CNN: “Deporting migrants to Libya was never discussed. This did not happen. Everything we talked about was as published on the official agenda.” This handout photo from Press Secretary of the President of El Salvador show US military personnel escorting an alleged gang member to El Salvador's Cecot prison at the El Salvador International Airport in San Luis Talpa, El Salvador, on April 12. Related article Trump admin proposed sending up to 500 alleged Venezuelan gang members during negotiations to use El Salvador’s mega-prison Trump officials have previously tried to strike safe third country agreements with countries in the Western hemisphere to ease the burden on the US asylum system and stem migration to the United States. The Trump administration has also moved to expand cooperation to include working with countries to detain people removed from the United States, including most recently with El Salvador. Multiple sources said the State Department is in talks with other countries about taking migrants, in addition to Libya and Rwanda. “I say this unapologetically, we are actively searching for other countries to take people from third countries,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday. “We are working with other countries to say, ‘We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries — will you do that as a favor to us?’ And the further away from America, the better, so they can’t come back across the border,” he said. The State Department has discussed the proposal to send migrants to the North African country with Libyans, according to one of the sources. One piece of potential leverage for the US in any talks is the likelihood of another travel ban against visitors from several countries, which the Trump administration has teased but not yet released. Libya was included in the ban during Trump’s first term. A United Nations report in 2024 pointed to years of human rights violations in Libya and concerns over a lack of accountability for the violations. Rights groups and U.N. agencies have also for years documented systematic abuse of migrants in Libya including allegations of forced labor, beatings, rapes and torture. There have also been conversations as recently as this week between the US and Rwanda to advance a plan to use the country for third-party deportations of undocumented immigrants in the US, sources familiar with the matter said. Rwanda and the US are discussing a possible agreement where Rwanda would accept migrants with criminal records who have served their sentence in the US already. The cost structure is still being finessed, though sources said it would likely be higher per person than the overall cost per person of deportees to El Salvador because Rwanda would not put the people in prison. Rwanda would instead take them into society and provide some social support to them, such as a stipend and assistance with finding a job locally, sources said. The plan could take weeks to come together and would be used more on an ad hoc basis. The conversation with Rwanda began in the early days of the Trump administration when there was a diplomatic note sent by the Trump administration to many countries around the world to gauge any interest in working on deportations of illegal migrants in the US. Rwanda signaled that they would be open to such conversations, sources said. In March, one person was deported from the US to Rwanda, a transfer that was seen as a model that could work on a bigger scale, sources said. The person was a refugee from Iraq, Omar Abdulsattar Ameen. The concept isn’t new for Rwanda, given an agreement that the country struck with the United Kingdom in 2022 to deport asylum seekers in the UK to Rwanda. But the plan was engulfed by legal troubles and last year it was discontinued by the newly elected British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who called the scheme a “gimmick.” The removal of third-country migrants to Libya and Rwanda is likely to face legal challenges. Last month, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting people to countries other than their own without first providing notice and an opportunity to contest it. This story has been updated with additional information. Correction: An earlier version of this article said that officials from Libya and the US State Department discussed at meetings in Washington this week the possibility of the US sending migrants to Libya. Though sources said officials from the two countries have discussed that possibility, the subject was not raised at this week’s meetings.