Special project
Deportation to a Third Country: Why It Can Send Belarusians Back to Belarus
The United States now sends deportees to countries they have never lived in. For Belarusians — who cannot renew a passport abroad and whose government pursues critics even beyond its borders — that road can become one more threat.
Until recently, Belarusians who asked the United States for asylum won it more often than people from many other countries. Now the system that once protected them denies asylum in many cases, and a new practice sends people not home but to third countries — from which they may end up back in Belarus.
Protection That Vanished
In fiscal 2024, U.S. immigration courts granted 88.4 percent of asylum claims from Belarusians. Together with Afghans, Belarusians had one of the highest grant rates of any nationality. For everyone else the rate was already falling: by June 2026 it had dropped to 5.5 percent.
Source: TRAC, Syracuse University. The line connects the months with available data. tracreports.org
The trend reached Belarusians later, but it reached them. In early 2025 judges granted 95 percent of their asylum claims. Then the share fell quarter after quarter, to 57 percent in the second quarter of 2026. In July and August it rose to 65 percent. In the first eleven months of fiscal 2026, judges denied asylum to 78 Belarusians — more than twice the number of denials in all of fiscal 2025.
Source: TRAC, Syracuse University. Immigration court data through August 2026. tracreports.org
The bench changed too. Of the 735 immigration judges serving at the end of fiscal 2024, 279 were fired or resigned over the next two fiscal years.
279/ 735
immigration judges fired or resigned in fiscal 2025–2026 — 38 percent of the bench at the end of fiscal 2024
Still serving Fired or resigned
Source: TRAC, Syracuse University
Detentions followed. By ICE’s own data, 37 Belarusians were detained in all of 2024, and 178 between January 2025 and July 2026. Belarusian Refugee Support knows of at least 127 detained Belarusians.
178
Belarusians detained by ICE, January 2025 – July 2026
Source: ICE detention data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and published by the Deportation Data Project
By ICE data, 71 Belarusians were removed from the United States between October 2024 and August 2026. Forty-one of them were sent not to Belarus but to third countries.
Source: ICE data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Analysis: Belarusian Refugee Support
A Network Built Out of Public View
Since January 2025 the United States has signed about 35 bilateral agreements to send people to third countries. Most of them have not been published. Each sets its own terms, quotas and payments.
Sources: Forbidden Stories; Tico Times; Modern Ghana
-
1 Asylum cooperative agreements (ACA)
The asylum claim is not heard on its merits in the United States; the person is sent to another country to seek protection there.
Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uganda, Belize
-
2 Transit “bridges”
The person is held in the third country while a return home is arranged with the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
Panama, Costa Rica, Ghana, Central African Republic (CAR), Equatorial Guinea
-
3 Detention
The person is placed in a prison or a closed camp in the third country.
El Salvador, Eswatini, South Sudan
Sources: Migration Policy Institute; USCRI
Once a person is removed from the United States, oversight of what happens to them next can be limited. Without effective safeguards there is a risk of chain deportation — onward removal from the third country to one where the person is in danger.
Three Ways Back to Belarus
When the country that took in a deported Belarusian gives them no chance to stay and find protection, three ways back to Belarus can open up before them — with almost no alternative.
- 1 No passport, no choice
- 2 “Voluntary” return
- 3 Extradition at the request of the Belarusian authorities
Source: analysis of USCRI, Third Country Deportation Watch and court records
- 1
No passport, no choice
Since September 2023, Decree No. 278 has stripped Belarusian diplomatic missions abroad of the power to issue, replace or renew passports. Instead, a person can get a certificate of return to Belarus. Without a valid passport or other recognised travel document, the chance of leaving a third country for another, safe one is sharply limited.
- 2
“Voluntary” return
The United States funds IOM return programmes in the countries that take deportees. People face a choice: stay in a camp or a guarded hotel, without the local language, money or legal status — or go home. In Panama, 171 of 299 deportees agreed to return within a week.
- 3
Extradition at the request of the Belarusian authorities
The Belarusian authorities use Interpol red notices against émigrés, presenting politically motivated cases as ordinary criminal ones. Journalist Andrei Gnyot spent seven months in custody in Serbia after his arrest at Minsk’s request.
What may await a person at the end of that road is documented. A Belarusian whom Sweden returned home after refusing asylum was detained on arrival and placed in pretrial detention. A long stay in the United States and an asylum claim can, in themselves, raise suspicion among the Belarusian authorities.
Source: data from the Viasna human rights centre, as cited by the European Union Agency for Asylum
The State Department’s 2024 human rights report on Belarus records torture, arbitrary detention and transnational repression by the Belarusian authorities. The U.S. government itself acknowledges these threats.
Six Countries
Of the 28 countries that have received flights of deportees, six have taken citizens of former Soviet states. By this analysis, the risk for Belarusians is high or very high in four of them. In Costa Rica and Moldova it is lower but still real: the extradition treaty between Moldova and Belarus remains in force.
Uzbekistan Legal basis for extradition to Belarus: CIS Chișinău Convention of 2002 No effective asylum procedure: Uzbekistan is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UNHCR office was closed in 2006 No access to the European Court of Human Rights: Uzbekistan is not a member of the Council of Europe or party to the European Convention on Human Rights Russian security forces in the country: Not found in this analysis Very high
The lack of an effective asylum procedure and of access to the European Court of Human Rights, together with cooperation between the security services, creates a high risk that a person will be handed on to the Belarusian authorities.
Legal basis for extradition to Belarus CIS Chișinău Convention of 2002
No effective asylum procedure Uzbekistan is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UNHCR office was closed in 2006
No access to the European Court of Human Rights Uzbekistan is not a member of the Council of Europe or party to the European Convention on Human Rights
Russian security forces in the country Not found in this analysis
- The CIS legal-assistance convention, which contains extradition provisions, has been in force for Uzbekistan since July 12, 2020.
- The two countries’ interior ministries cooperate through a joint working group. In October 2025 their officials discussed “fighting extremism”.
- Citizens of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan deported from the US to Uzbekistan in April 2025 were sent straight on home.
- Direct flights between Minsk and Tashkent make it quick to move a person between the two countries.
Equatorial Guinea Legal basis for extradition to Belarus: None found No effective asylum procedure: Deportees are told openly that they will not be granted asylum No access to the European Court of Human Rights: Not a Council of Europe member Russian security forces in the country: Russian troops guard the president Very high
A country close to Minsk, guarded by Russian troops, that openly refuses asylum.
Legal basis for extradition to Belarus None found
No effective asylum procedure Deportees are told openly that they will not be granted asylum
No access to the European Court of Human Rights Not a Council of Europe member
Russian security forces in the country Russian troops guard the president
- More than half of the first 29 deportees have already been sent home.
- Up to 800 Russian “Africa Corps” troops guard President Obiang.
- In 2023 Obiang and Lukashenko exchanged visits and signed agreements running to 2026.
Central African Republic (CAR) Legal basis for extradition to Belarus: None found No effective asylum procedure: Party to the Convention on paper only No access to the European Court of Human Rights: Not a Council of Europe member Russian security forces in the country: Wagner guards the president and patrols the capital Very high
Neither safe to live in nor a court to turn to. The only way out on offer is an IOM return — that is, to Belarus.
Legal basis for extradition to Belarus None found
No effective asylum procedure Party to the Convention on paper only
No access to the European Court of Human Rights Not a Council of Europe member
Russian security forces in the country Wagner guards the president and patrols the capital
- Armed conflict since 2013; UN experts record extrajudicial killings involving Russian mercenaries.
- Some Wagner fighters were based in Belarus after 2023.
- The US sent $85 million to IOM’s programme in the country.
Panama Legal basis for extradition to Belarus: None found No effective asylum procedure: Deportees get a 30-day transit permit only No access to the European Court of Human Rights: Not a Council of Europe member Russian security forces in the country: None found High
The regime is built to make people leave. After 30 days, a Belarusian without a valid passport can go only to Belarus.
Legal basis for extradition to Belarus None found
No effective asylum procedure Deportees get a 30-day transit permit only
No access to the European Court of Human Rights Not a Council of Europe member
Russian security forces in the country None found
- Deportees were held incommunicado with phones taken; those who refused to return were moved to a camp by the Darién jungle.
- 2026 notes: up to 50 people a month and a 30-day transit document with no access to asylum.
Costa Rica A Belarusian has already been moved here Legal basis for extradition to Belarus: None found No effective asylum procedure: Independent courts, but access to the procedure is limited No access to the European Court of Human Rights: Not a Council of Europe member Russian security forces in the country: None found Medium to high
Safer than the other Latin American destinations, but not safe. Anyone who cannot file for asylum at once is left without language, work or passport, facing a single offer: an IOM return.
Legal basis for extradition to Belarus None found
No effective asylum procedure Independent courts, but access to the procedure is limited
No access to the European Court of Human Rights Not a Council of Europe member
Russian security forces in the country None found
- 424 people moved on 20 flights under the 2026 agreement.
- The first group was held for about two months in the closed CATEM centre; almost half went back home.
- Over 40 human-rights groups have demanded an end to chain deportations.
Moldova Legal basis for extradition to Belarus: CIS Minsk Convention of 1993, not denounced No effective asylum procedure: Party to the 1951 Convention; courts review requests No access to the European Court of Human Rights: Council of Europe — urgent ECHR measures available Russian security forces in the country: Russian troops in Transnistria, outside Chișinău’s control Medium to high
An extradition treaty with Belarus is in force, and that is a real risk. Moldovan courts and urgent ECHR measures hold it back but do not rule it out; status after 90 days is undefined.
Legal basis for extradition to Belarus CIS Minsk Convention of 1993, not denounced
No effective asylum procedure Party to the 1951 Convention; courts review requests
No access to the European Court of Human Rights Council of Europe — urgent ECHR measures available
Russian security forces in the country Russian troops in Transnistria, outside Chișinău’s control
- Four flights in 2026, over 30 people from Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Armenia.
- In 2025 a KGB network including a former deputy head of Moldova’s intelligence service was exposed.
Report authors’ assessment based on open sources. Not an official classification
2026, Month by Month
The cases of Belarusians are no longer hypothetical.
-
A federal judge in Massachusetts, in D.V.D. v. DHS, strikes down DHS rules on third-country removals and requires proper notice.
- Belarusians
A 23-year-old Belarusian who reported political persecution is moved to Costa Rica with a group of 22 people. What happened to him next is unknown.
- Belarusians
Courts halt the asylum cases of five Belarusians and order them moved to Belize — although the Belize agreement, by its own text, covers only Central America and the Caribbean.
-
US special envoy John Coale seeks the release of 25 political prisoners; 52 were freed earlier. Minsk expels those it frees, some without passports.
-
The First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upholds the Massachusetts ruling.
-
The Supreme Court suspends the ruling pending a December hearing. Until then, removal is possible without advance notice.
Washington negotiates the release of Belarusians from prison — and at the same time sends others down a road that ends in one. Every Belarusian returned through a third country is a potential new political prisoner and a future bargaining chip.
What the Law Says
U.S. law does not ban removal to a third country outright. It bans sending anyone where their life or freedom is threatened. For Belarusians, that bar should extend to removal to third countries too, because the road from them predictably leads to Belarus.
The rules
- 1951 · CAT
- The Refugee Convention and the Convention against Torture bar returning a person to a place where they face persecution or torture. Chain removal is barred as well.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)
- No removal to a place where a person’s life or freedom is threatened because of their political opinion.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A)
- An ACA applies only if the third country has a full and fair procedure for deciding asylum claims.
Why these rules are not met for Belarusians
- The assurances of the receiving country cover only how it treats the person — not what the Belarusian authorities will do after their inevitable return.
- Return is foreseeable: Decree No. 278 leaves a Belarusian only a certificate of return, and the receiving countries officially describe their role as helping with repatriation.
- Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea offer no access to asylum, and in Panama a 30-day transit permit takes its place — there is no “full and fair procedure” there.
The practical takeaway: do not wait for a notice. Fear of removal to third countries has to be raised in your case in advance.
What Must Change
Belarusian citizens should be excluded from third-country removals. For them, it means removal to Belarus.
The US administration
- Do not send Belarusian citizens to third countries or put them on lists for transfer.
- In any case, bar removals of Belarusians to Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea and CAR.
- Require written assurances that Belarusians will not be handed to the Belarusian authorities or pressed into returning through IOM.
Congress
- Ask DHS how many Belarusians have been sent to third countries, to which ones, and what became of them.
- Include the removals of Belarusians in the Senate’s inquiries into secret deportation agreements.
Immigration attorneys
- In every Belarusian case, raise fear of removal to third countries and of chain removal early, without waiting for notice.
- Against motions under an ACA, present evidence of individual risk and of the absence of a fair asylum procedure.
The diaspora and rights groups
- Keep a single record of Belarusians sent to third countries and follow what happens to them.
- Link up with rights groups in Costa Rica and Panama so deportees get help at once.