The Trump administration is preparing to deport a group of Iranian asylum-seekers and other migrants to the Central African Republic under a new third-country removal agreement, according to reports citing officials and immigration lawyers familiar with the plan.
The first flight could carry roughly 20 people and may include migrants from Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Turkey. The plan has triggered concern from immigration attorneys and human rights advocates because the Central African Republic has faced years of political instability, armed conflict and weak state authority.
The reported arrangement is part of the administration’s broader use of third-country deportation agreements. These deals allow the United States to send migrants to countries other than their own when deportation to their home country is legally difficult or blocked because of persecution or torture risks.
Among those reportedly scheduled for removal are two Iranian women who arrived in the United States in November 2024. Their attorney, Emily Trostle, told Reuters that both women were granted withholding of removal by a U.S. immigration judge, meaning the court found they faced a serious risk if returned to Iran.
TRENDING TODAY
One of the women is described by her attorney as a baptized Christian convert, while the other is described as a democracy activist. Both groups can face severe consequences in Iran, depending on the circumstances of their cases. The protection they received prevents their deportation to Iran, but it does not necessarily stop the government from trying to send them to a third country.
That legal distinction is now at the center of the controversy. Immigration advocates argue that sending protected asylum-seekers to a country where they have no ties, limited support and possible safety risks undermines the purpose of humanitarian protection. Administration officials have argued in similar cases that third-country removals are lawful when migrants receive due process and are not returned to the country where they fear persecution.
The Central African Republic, often referred to as CAR, is bordered by Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo and Cameroon. Since gaining independence from France in 1960, it has experienced repeated coups, weak central government control and armed insurgencies. Large parts of the country have been affected by violence, displacement and humanitarian crises.
President Faustin-Archange Touadéra has relied heavily on Russian security support while also seeking partnerships with Western countries in areas such as critical minerals. The new U.S. deportation arrangement was reportedly finalized during a U.S. delegation visit to Bangui, the CAR capital, in May.
According to reporting on the arrangement, deportees sent to CAR are expected to be housed in apartments in Bangui and will not face immediate repatriation to their countries of origin. The International Organization for Migration is expected to provide voluntary post-arrival humanitarian assistance at the request of the Central African government. The agency has said it is not involved in the deportations themselves.
The plan has drawn criticism because CAR is widely viewed as a fragile destination for people who may already be vulnerable. Critics say the migrants may lack language access, legal status clarity, family support, work opportunities and long-term protection guarantees. Supporters of the administration’s deportation strategy argue that the United States needs more options to remove migrants who cannot remain in the country but also cannot be returned directly to their homelands.
The CAR agreement follows similar third-country arrangements involving other African nations. The Trump administration has used or explored deals with countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Eswatini. These agreements have become a central part of the administration’s effort to accelerate removals and reduce the number of people held in immigration limbo.
The policy has also created growing tension in Congress. Lawmakers from both parties recently raised concerns over reported plans to send Afghan allies stranded in Qatar to unsafe third countries. Those lawmakers argued that people who worked with U.S. forces should not be relocated to unstable countries simply because the administration does not want to admit them to the United States.
The Iranian cases could intensify the debate further because of the current conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran. Deporting Iranian asylum-seekers during a period of heightened military and diplomatic tension may draw additional scrutiny from lawyers, rights groups and foreign policy experts.
The State Department and other U.S. agencies had not immediately released full public details about the CAR agreement, including how many migrants could ultimately be sent, what nationalities are covered, and whether deportees would be able to stay long-term in the country.
For immigration lawyers, the immediate concern is whether the people on the first flight will have a meaningful chance to challenge their removal before being placed on a plane. In past third-country removal cases, attorneys have argued that the government moved quickly and provided limited information about destination countries.
The administration is likely to defend the policy as a lawful tool to enforce immigration orders while avoiding deportations to countries where courts have found a risk of persecution. But critics say the strategy creates a dangerous loophole: people who win protection from deportation to one unsafe country may still be sent to another unstable country with little connection to their lives.
The legal fight could expand if attorneys file emergency motions to block the removals. Courts may be asked to decide whether the government provided enough notice, whether CAR is a safe destination, and whether the removals comply with U.S. and international obligations.
For now, the reported first flight has turned the Central African Republic into the latest focal point in Trump’s aggressive deportation strategy. The outcome could shape how far the administration can go in using third-country deals to remove migrants who have already received some form of protection from U.S. immigration courts.
Why It Matters
This matters because the case tests the limits of U.S. immigration enforcement when migrants cannot legally be returned to their home countries because of persecution or torture risks.
It also matters because third-country deportation deals are becoming a major part of the Trump administration’s immigration strategy. If courts allow these removals to continue, more migrants with protection claims could be sent to countries where they have no ties and uncertain long-term safety.
What Comes Next
Immigration lawyers may try to block the first deportation flight through emergency court action. The administration may also face pressure to disclose more details about the CAR agreement, including how migrants will be protected after arrival.
If the flight proceeds, attention will shift to conditions in Bangui, whether deportees receive legal status and support, and whether additional flights are planned under the same agreement.
The reported deportation plan drew attention online after accounts highlighted that the group may include Iranian, Syrian, Afghan and Turkish migrants being sent to the Central African Republic under a third-country agreement.
🇺🇸 Trump admin preparing to deport a group of Iranian, Syrian, Afghan and other migrants to the Central African Republic under a new third-country agreement.
The group includes two Iranian women, a Christian convert and a pro-democracy activist, who had been granted protection… pic.twitter.com/R8a1LUTURD
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) June 12, 2026
