Thousands of asylum-seekers have abandoned claims as the Trump administration pushes third-country deportations, stalling thousands more.
A growing number of asylum-seekers say they are giving up their cases, worried that a new push to deport them to “third countries” will leave them trapped in detention or facing persecution elsewhere.
The story of William Yacelga Benalcazar. an Ecuadorian man seeking asylum in the United States. follows a pattern that immigration attorneys say is spreading in courtrooms across the country: after telling a judge he feared returning home. he was ordered deported to Honduras instead.. In his account. the months that followed were defined by the uncertainty of detention and the fear that his asylum claim would not be heard on its merits.
Benalcazar. who told a judge he fled threats from criminal gangs in Ecuador. said he spent five months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention.. During that time. he said he became ill. struggled to get basic necessities. and drank water he described as contaminated with chlorine.. He asked to be returned to Ecuador rather than continue fighting in the U.S.. saying his attorney told him he could remain detained for three or four more months.. After that decision, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Benalcazar entered the U.S.. illegally and was deported to Ecuador on April 16.. Benalcazar later told reporters from Ecuador that he was still dealing with symptoms tied to the virus he said he contracted in detention.
What Benalcazar describes fits an approach the Trump administration has advanced with unusually aggressive speed: deporting asylum-seekers to countries other than the one they fled. using arrangements the U.S.. has developed with third nations.. A CBS News analysis of federal data. along with interviews with attorneys and immigration policy experts. found that these “third-country” removals have stalled thousands of immigration cases and discouraged thousands more from pursuing asylum in the first place.
The scale is large enough to affect both the asylum system and the day-to-day choices people make while their cases are pending.. One monitoring group estimated that about 17,500 people have been deported to third countries since President Trump returned to office.. The vast majority were sent to Mexico. though the larger policy also threatens removals to other countries under “asylum cooperative agreements.” A separate figure cited in the analysis—based on what border czar Tom Homan told CBS News about the total deportations carried out so far during the administration’s second term—suggests third-country deportations represent a relatively small slice of all removals. even as they have become a major pressure point inside asylum proceedings.
Behind those numbers is a procedural shift that immigration lawyers say has changed the way asylum cases are handled.. In a campaign lasting months. more than 75. 500 asylum cases received a motion to “pretermit. ” a step that can end proceedings without a merits hearing.. Attorneys say such motions were relatively rare for much of the immigration court system until an appellate development in October 2025.. That change came when the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that immigration judges should decide on motions for third-country removal before determining whether a person qualifies for asylum.
After that ruling. lawyers said they were forced to prepare cases to show fear of persecution not only in the applicant’s home country. but also in third-party destinations such as Ecuador. Honduras. Guatemala. and Uganda.. Policymakers have pointed to signed agreements with those countries—described in the analysis as “asylum cooperative agreements”—as the legal and operational mechanism for rerouting asylum-seekers.. Critics argue that the fear and uncertainty created by that process can push people to abandon claims even when they believe they have credible protection needs.
The analysis also found indications that the threat of third-country removal has consequences for how many asylum cases move forward.. Where a pretermission motion was filed. about 16% of asylum-seekers—roughly 12. 300 people—withdrew or abandoned their claims or agreed to depart voluntarily. according to immigration court data through March 31.
Immigration attorneys and advocates told reporters that for many asylum-seekers. the third countries receiving deportees may be unsafe themselves or may not offer functional asylum systems.. Victoria Neilson. a supervising attorney with the National Immigration Project. said these destinations can pose danger. and that people may feel they are choosing “the devil you know” rather than risking an uncertain process elsewhere.
Even as some people walk away from asylum, courts continue to generate new removal orders tied to third-country agreements.. More than 24. 000 people received removal orders to third countries after a pretermission motion was filed. according to the immigration court data analyzed.. The report noted that ICE has not disclosed how many of those ordered removals have actually been carried out.
The operational realities of receiving countries may also undermine the policy’s feasibility.. The analysis pointed to Honduras, where the country has agreed to accept a limited number of non-Honduran deportees per month.. Yet it also reported that by the end of March. more than 6. 300 non-Hondurans had been issued deportation orders to Honduras following pretermission requests.. Third Country Deportation Watch reported that only about 60 had been removed to Honduras as of late April. according to the report.
Lawyers say the mismatch between court orders and third-country capacity can leave people in legal limbo.. Adriana Heffley. an immigration attorney in Atlanta. said that forcing judges to order removals to destinations that have not agreed to accept large numbers creates thousands of deportation orders that cannot realistically be implemented.
That backlog appears in the appeals process as well.. The report said about 13. 300 cases—more than half of those with third-country removal orders—were stalled while immigrants appealed. because an appeal pauses deportation.. It also found that the Board of Immigration Appeals decided fewer than 1% of appeals by the end of March. while last year’s average time to resolve an appeal decision was about two years.
For those trapped in detention, delays can become its own form of pressure.. Advocates and lawyers told reporters that waiting indefinitely for an appeal ruling can be more harmful than the threat of deportation.. Even though the report said the BIA’s turnaround is faster for people in detention. it still averaged about 10 months last year.
Benalcazar’s account described detention conditions and movements that he says isolated him from his family and legal support.. Before he gave up on his asylum claim. he said he was transferred between five facilities across the country and at one point was handcuffed for an entire day during transfers.. He described spending most of his time in Eloy. Arizona. thousands of miles from his wife. children. and legal team in New York. and said for more than a month his family and attorney did not know where he was.. He also said a judge denied his request for bond out of detention.
Carlos Trujillo. an immigration attorney in Provo. Utah. said detained asylum-seekers are often left with few practical options besides continuing to fight or surrender.. Without a federal court stepping in to rule that detention is unreasonable or illegal. he said. people can be held for extended periods—a dynamic he described as psychological pressure to give up.
ICE did not respond to a request for comment about its third-country deportation efforts or detention facility conditions.. In a statement relayed to reporters. a DHS spokesperson argued that Benalcazar crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally in August 2023 and that an immigration judge ordered his deportation to Ecuador last month.. The spokesperson also said Benalcazar was arrested for larceny and criminal possession of stolen property.. Benalcazar disputed that he was ever prosecuted, saying the charges were pending when he was detained.
In that same statement. the spokesperson framed the policy as a message from President Trump: that people who break U.S.. laws will be arrested and deported.. Benalcazar’s response centered on a different narrative—one in which his priority was his family’s stability during months of confinement and medical hardship.
About two weeks after his deportation, he said he was still struggling to sleep and continued to face illness symptoms.. He told reporters he left money and resources with family so they could survive while he was detained. and he said he wants to start over after being imprisoned without having committed a crime.
The broader policy debate is now heading toward court. A federal lawsuit challenging pretermission of asylum cases under third-country agreements is currently pending. The lawsuit argues the government is subverting due process and claims that the countries involved have inadequate asylum systems.
The dispute also hinges on how immigration courts manage asylum filings and withdrawals.. The analysis said the data examined asylum-related proceedings for the period from Jan.. 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026, drawn from the Executive Office for Immigration Review.. It also noted that the data does not specify whether pretermission motions are tied specifically to third-country agreements or a different appellate ruling.. Interviews and additional data analysis cited in the report indicated that most pretermission motions filed in recent months were made in pursuit of third-country removals.
The report further said that while the dataset included a date for voluntary departure decisions. it did not include a field for when asylum applications were withdrawn.. Attorneys and analysis of previous data releases suggested most withdrawals occurred after a pretermission motion was filed—an important detail for how advocates interpret the pattern of abandonment.
For the people caught in the system. the policy choices made at the courthouse level can determine whether asylum is decided on its merits or whether it is quietly closed. not by a finding of no protection need. but by a procedural pivot to third-country removal.. And for immigration judges. attorneys. and immigration courts. the operational and legal uncertainties described in the reporting now raise an urgent question: whether the system can carry out the removals it orders on the timeline it imposes—and whether due process is being honored while it happens.
asylum claims third-country deportations ICE immigration courts Board of Immigration Appeals asylum cooperative agreements