Published on: 2026-09-28
Source: United Nations – United Nations –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
September 28, 2026 Refugees and Migrants
Agreements by the United States on the externalization of migration already expose migrants to an increased risk of human rights violations, including torture and persecution, human rights experts warned today. According to them, agreements on the transfer of migrants and asylum seekers have been concluded with more than 35 countries and territories, where it is impossible to ensure effective protection of their rights.
“The harm caused by this U.S. government scheme is no longer hypothetical. These arrangements trigger a cascade of human rights violations, increase the risk of torture and ill-treatment, as well as forced disappearances, and violate the customary law principle of non-refoulement in countries around the world that sign agreements to receive flights with migrants and refugees deported from the U.S.,” the experts said.
As part of the deportation agreements, the US government has already sent at least 23,000 migrants to third countries. The scheme applies to asylum seekers and migrants at various stages of the immigration process. Due to a lack of transparency, these agreements are largely removed from democratic oversight and independent human rights monitoring.
Risks for the most vulnerable
Experts warned that in addition to the risk of forced return, these agreements create conditions for a whole range of other violations, including arbitrary detention and detention without communication with the outside world, forced disappearances, limited access to legal assistance, denial of due process guarantees, family separation, discrimination, homelessness, slavery, human trafficking, serious consequences for mental health and well-being, as well as lack of access to medical care and essential services.
“The greatest risk is faced by children, women, persons with disabilities, victims of human trafficking, LGBT individuals, human rights defenders, stateless persons, and other people in extremely vulnerable situations,” the experts noted.
“These migrants are transferred to countries or territories with which they have no connection. This can become a traumatic experience, intensifying the sense of isolation and exacerbating the suffering they originally endured that made them flee to the US in the first place. Others are sent to places where they face the threat of further violence or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or human rights activities,” they emphasized.
Experts sent messages to the United States and the governments of all countries with which externalization agreements had been concluded as of June 2026 – in total to 35 countries and territories.
“The consequences could be deadly”
“Every day new countries negotiate and sign agreements,” the experts stated. “For migrants in particularly vulnerable situations, the consequences can be deadly. They may be transferred to countries where there is no infrastructure to process asylum applications, no safe facilities for accommodation, no adequate medical services, or sustainable opportunities for reintegration. In many cases, these third countries themselves are affected by conflicts, and their populations face displacement, hunger, and extreme poverty. They lack the capacity to protect the rights of migrants sent there by wealthy states seeking to evade their international obligations.”
“Some agreements provide only for temporary admission followed by expulsion at the discretion of a third country,” they added. “Some countries may resort to forced return or exert pressure on migrants, forcing them to request a return to their country of origin despite existing risks, threatening them with continued detention or transfer to yet another country where they face real threats of persecution.”
“Return cannot be considered voluntary if a person does not have legal status, means of livelihood, independent legal assistance, or a real alternative to return,” human rights defenders stated. “Under such circumstances, the return would be forced and could conclude an illegal chain of forced returns that began with the initial transfer of the person by the United States.”
International obligations of states
Experts have warned that states cannot shift responsibility onto other countries for fulfilling their international obligations in the field of human rights and refugee law regarding migrants and asylum seekers at the expense of fundamental human rights guarantees.
“States cannot exempt themselves from international legal obligations through treaties,” they emphasized. “The prohibition of forcible return applies everywhere a state exercises jurisdiction or effective control, and at every stage of the transfer of a person.”
Referring to the practice of the UN Human Rights Committee, according to which states retain responsibility for migrants and asylum seekers when attempting to transfer the fulfillment of their legal obligations to other parties, the experts reiterated that these obligations cannot be nullified through bilateral agreements, diplomatic assurances, financial arrangements with the United States, or the involvement of international organizations in outsourcing agreements.
“UN bodies, including the International Organization for Migration (IOM), play an extremely important role in assisting refugees and migrants; however, their involvement must in no way legitimize agreements that put people at risk of forced return or other serious human rights violations, including torture. Such involvement should be based on strict human rights due diligence procedures,” experts stated.
They warned that participation in actions that lead to human rights violations, including violating the absolute prohibition of torture, from which no derogation is permitted, “in some situations may constitute complicity.”
According to international law, states that transfer migrants and asylum seekers, as well as the countries or territories that receive them, remain bound by their international legal obligations with respect to individuals present in their territory or under their jurisdiction.
“Cooperation does not diminish responsibility,” the statement says. “A state that knowingly assists or facilitates another state in actions that violate the principle of non-refoulement or other human rights obligations may itself bear international responsibility.”
A call to cease the agreements
“All participating states and territories must immediately cease these arrangements, restore access to fair and effective asylum procedures, ensure the protection of human rights and proper procedural guarantees, prevent chains of forced return, as well as ensure transparency, independent monitoring of human rights compliance and accountability,” the experts urged. “Human rights must be at the center of migration management, not sacrificed to deterrence policy.”
“This is not just about migration policy, but about the lives, safety, dignity, and rights of people who may have already suffered serious hardships and who, in many cases, are fleeing persecution and violence that threaten their lives in their home countries,” the experts emphasized.
UN human rights defenders are in contact with the United States and all 35 affected countries and territories, as well as with UNHCR and IOM. The Special Rapporteur of the African Commission, within the scope of their regional mandate, is engaging with a number of affected African states.
The document was signed by 28 independent UN experts.
Special rapporteurs, independent experts, and working groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. They work on a voluntary basis, are not UN staff members, and do not receive salaries for their work. All views or opinions expressed are solely those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the UN or the OHCHR.
Please note; This information is raw content obtained directly from the source. It represents an accurate account of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.