The Trump administration has deported 15 Latin Americans to the Democratic Republic of Congo, sending them thousands of miles from home to an unfamiliar country—many despite U.S. court orders explicitly protecting them from deportation to their homelands. Among them is a 29-year-old Colombian woman who was granted protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture in May 2025 after a federal judge ruled she could not safely be returned to Colombia, where she had faced threats from armed groups and abuse by a former partner in government.
The woman, who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, was detained at a routine U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in earlier this year and told a third country had been found for her. Less than three weeks later, she was on a plane with her hands and feet restrained during a nearly 24-hour charter flight. She learned she was going to Congo the day before departure.
Court Protections Overridden
All the deportees had received legal orders from U.S. judges shielding them from removal to their home countries, according to U.S. attorney Alma David, one of their lawyers. A recent U.S. court ruling found the government likely broke the law by deporting a fellow Colombian to Congo. The Trump administration has struck deals with at least eight African countries to accept deportees who are not their own nationals, including people whose home countries will not take them back or who have court protections preventing their return. Legal experts say the arrangements function as an effective loophole in U.S. immigration law.
The terms of Congo's deal are unclear. Unlike other participating countries, which have received millions of dollars, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi has called it an "act of goodwill," with no financial compensation. The deal comes as Washington has pressured neighboring Rwanda over its support for the M23 rebel group in eastern Congo, a dynamic analysts say may help explain Kinshasa's cooperation.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about the Colombian woman's case but has asserted the agreements "ensure due process under the U.S. Constitution." The Trump administration says they are needed to "remove criminal illegal aliens."
Confined Lives in Kinshasa
The International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-affiliated body, plays a central role in managing the deportees' lives in Kinshasa. They stay in bungalows at a hotel near the airport, with costs covered by Congo's government, according to the IOM. The gates are locked and security does not let them leave alone, the Colombian woman said. Deportees may go out roughly once a week, accompanied by IOM staff, with about 30 minutes to shop or withdraw money. "They choose where we go and what we buy," the woman said.
The IOM has also presented deportees with their options: return to their home countries, where many face the persecution they fled, with IOM assistance, or remain in Congo with no support. Her attorney, Alma David, called them "impossible choices," saying the deportations violated due process rights, U.S. immigration law and international treaty obligations.
The deportees arrived on three-month Congolese visas. What happens when those expire is unclear. They have been told they can apply for asylum in Congo, an option none have taken. The woman said she does not feel safe there. She said the food has made several of them sick, French and Lingala are as foreign as the surroundings, and she spends most of her time in her room making late-night calls to her 10-year-old daughter back in Colombia.
Human Rights Concerns
Congolese human rights groups have called the arrangement a violation of international refugee law. The Congo-based Institute for Human Rights Research described it as "arbitrary detention by proxy for the United States."
The woman, who managed a dessert shop in Colombia before fleeing, said she committed no crime and fled to the United States for safety. Instead, she is stranded in a country she had never heard of, with no timeline and no plan.
Why This Matters:
This case exposes how administrative workarounds can effectively nullify judicial protections meant to safeguard vulnerable people from persecution. When federal courts grant protection under international treaties like the Convention Against Torture, those orders are meant to be binding—yet these deportations suggest executive agencies can circumvent them by sending people to third countries where they remain confined and isolated. The arrangement raises fundamental questions about due process, the enforceability of court orders, and whether the United States is honoring its treaty obligations. For the individuals involved, including a mother separated from her 10-year-old daughter, the human cost is immediate and severe: confined in an unfamiliar country with no support system, no clear legal status, and facing what their attorneys call "impossible choices" between returning to danger or remaining indefinitely stranded. The involvement of international bodies like the IOM in managing what human rights groups describe as proxy detention further complicates accountability for these outcomes.