ICE Signs New Deportation Agreements with Foreign Governments

The United States has expanded its network of removal cooperation agreements with foreign governments, enabling ICE to accelerate deportation operations to countries that have historically resisted accepting returnees. These bilateral and multilateral agreements, negotiated through the State Department and DHS, represent a significant shift in the diplomatic approach to immigration enforcement and have direct consequences for nationals of the affected countries living in the United States.

How Removal Cooperation Agreements Work

Under U.S. immigration law, ICE can only deport individuals to countries willing to accept them. When a foreign government refuses to issue travel documents or accept deportation flights, ICE's ability to carry out removal orders is effectively blocked. Individuals from "recalcitrant" countries — nations that refuse or delay accepting their citizens — may be released from detention under the Supreme Court's ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which limits indefinite immigration detention.

To overcome this obstacle, the U.S. government uses a combination of diplomatic pressure and incentives to secure removal cooperation. Tools available to the government include:

• Visa sanctions: Under INA Section 243(d), the Secretary of State can impose visa sanctions on countries that refuse to accept deportees, restricting or eliminating certain visa categories for that country's nationals.
• Foreign aid conditions: The U.S. can condition foreign aid, trade agreements, and other diplomatic benefits on a country's cooperation with immigration enforcement.
• Bilateral agreements: Formal agreements establish procedures for the issuance of travel documents, the scheduling of removal flights, and the reception of deportees.
• Multilateral frameworks: Regional agreements, such as those with Central American and Caribbean nations, establish shared protocols for deportation logistics.

Countries with Expanded Cooperation

The following regions and countries have seen notable changes in their removal cooperation with the United States:

Central America and Mexico

Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have long maintained cooperative arrangements with the United States. Mexico, while cooperating on land border returns, has expanded its acceptance of third-country nationals removed by air through Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols and related programs. These agreements have been the foundation of U.S. removal operations for decades.

Caribbean Nations

Haiti, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic have expanded their cooperation, with increased charter flight schedules and streamlined travel document issuance. Cuba presents a more complex situation — while the U.S.-Cuba migration accords have historically governed returns, the diplomatic relationship between the two countries continues to affect the pace and logistics of removals.

South America

Colombia, Ecuador, and Brazil have expanded their acceptance of deportees. Venezuela presents significant challenges due to the breakdown of diplomatic relations, though the U.S. has explored third-country removal arrangements for Venezuelan nationals. The situation for Venezuelan nationals remains legally complex, as many have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or have pending asylum claims.

Africa

Several African nations have come under pressure to accept deportees, with the U.S. applying visa sanctions under INA Section 243(d) against countries deemed recalcitrant. Nigeria, Ghana, and Somalia have historically received U.S. deportation flights, though the logistics of removals to conflict-affected regions remain challenging.

Asia

India has expanded its cooperation with U.S. removal operations, a notable shift that affects the large Indian national population in the United States, including individuals with overstayed visas or denied asylum claims. China and Vietnam have also engaged in expanded cooperation, though the pace of removals to these countries remains slower than to Western Hemisphere nations due to diplomatic complexities and travel document delays.

The Role of Visa Sanctions

Visa sanctions have proven to be one of the most effective tools for securing removal cooperation. Under INA Section 243(d), the Secretary of State is required to order the discontinuance of visa issuance to nationals of countries that refuse to accept deportees. In practice, the severity of sanctions varies — from restricting certain visa categories to complete suspension of visa issuance.

Countries that have faced visa sanctions in recent years have often moved to cooperate after experiencing the economic and diplomatic consequences of restricted travel. For nationals of sanctioned countries, the practical effect can be devastating, as visa applications are delayed or denied regardless of individual merit while the sanctions remain in place.

Impact on Immigrants in the United States

The expansion of removal cooperation has immediate consequences for nationals of affected countries:

• Faster removals: Individuals with final orders of removal who previously could not be deported due to their country's non-cooperation may now face rapid removal.
• Reduced release under Zadvydas: With more countries cooperating, fewer detained individuals will be eligible for release under the Zadvydas 180-day rule, as ICE can argue that removal is reasonably foreseeable.
• Travel document issuance: Foreign consulates in the U.S. are issuing travel documents more quickly, reducing the time between a final removal order and actual deportation.
• Collateral consequences: Visa sanctions can affect lawful immigrant visa applicants from sanctioned countries, creating backlogs and delays for individuals who have no connection to enforcement issues.

Diplomatic Controversies

The expansion of removal cooperation agreements has not been without controversy. Human rights organizations have raised concerns about deporting individuals to countries where they may face persecution, violence, or inadequate conditions. The return of nationals to countries experiencing armed conflict, political instability, or natural disasters raises questions about compliance with international law, including the principle of non-refoulement — the prohibition against returning individuals to countries where they face serious harm.

Some receiving countries have publicly objected to the conditions and manner of deportations, including the use of shackles during flights and the arrival of deportees without personal belongings or identification. These objections have at times strained bilateral relations.

Legal Protections and Options

Individuals facing deportation to countries with new or expanded cooperation agreements should be aware of available legal protections:

• Convention Against Torture (CAT): If you fear torture in the country of removal, you may be eligible for protection under CAT, which prohibits removal to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing you would be tortured.
• Withholding of removal: Under INA Section 241(b)(3), removal is prohibited to a country where your life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
• Temporary Protected Status: Nationals of certain countries may be eligible for TPS, which provides protection from removal and work authorization.
• Deferred Enforced Departure: The President may designate certain nationals for deferred enforced departure, providing temporary protection from removal.
• Motion to reopen: Changed country conditions may provide grounds for a motion to reopen a prior removal order.

What Comes Next

The diplomatic landscape of removal cooperation continues to evolve. As the U.S. negotiates new agreements and applies pressure on remaining recalcitrant countries, the pool of individuals who cannot be deported due to country non-cooperation continues to shrink. For immigration attorneys, this means reassessing the legal options available to clients from newly cooperating countries and identifying alternative forms of relief.

Congressional oversight of these agreements remains limited, with most arrangements negotiated by the executive branch without legislative approval. Advocacy groups have called for greater transparency and congressional review of removal cooperation agreements, particularly when they involve countries with poor human rights records.

Last verified: April 2026 · Reviewed by USImmigrationLaw.Today editorial team.