D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security

Decided

2026-09-18

Summary

DHS policies issued in March and July 2025 let the agency remove a noncitizen with a final removal order to a "third country" — one neither named in their removal order nor previously disclosed to them in writing — without adequate notice or a meaningful chance to raise a fear of persecution or torture there first. On February 25, 2026, the district court (Judge Brian Murphy, D. Mass.) set the policy aside as unlawful. The First Circuit's ruling largely upheld that decision, holding that noncitizens must get a genuinely "meaningful" opportunity to raise safety concerns before removal to a country outside their original case, and questioning the government's reliance on unverified "blanket assurances" from receiving countries.

Current status

The government is expected to seek further review (rehearing en banc or the Supreme Court); no such review has been decided as of this writing, so whether these protections hold or narrow further remains open. This ruling is about the notice and process due before a third-country removal, not the merits of any individual's underlying asylum or Convention Against Torture claim — whether it affects a specific pending case depends closely on that case's own removal history, an attorney question this app can't resolve.