Case Overview
Case name: D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (1:25-cv-10676)
Deciding authority: United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
Decision date: February 25, 2026
Immigration category involved. Removal Proceedings, Withholding of Removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief.
High-level summary. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cannot deport noncitizens to undisclosed “third countries” without providing prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to seek protection from persecution or torture. The court vacated DHS’s third-country removal policy. The court determined that executing surprise deportations based on unverified “diplomatic assurances” violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Key Facts
Background and parties. Four noncitizens—D.V.D., M.M., E.F.D., and O.C.G.—filed a class-action lawsuit against DHS, the DHS Secretary, the U.S. Attorney General, and local correctional officials.
Immigration history. The plaintiffs were noncitizens subject to final orders of removal. During prior proceedings, some plaintiffs, such as O.C.G., were explicitly told by immigration judges that they could not raise fear-based claims regarding third countries because those countries were not officially designated as their removal destinations.
Chronology of material events. On February 18, 2025, DHS issued a directive to evaluate removing individuals to unannounced “third countries” if the individuals had already secured protection from removal to their native countries.
- In March 2025, the government removed class members to El Salvador and Mexico without adequate procedural safeguards.
- On March 30, 2025, DHS released updated “March Guidance” authorizing these removals without prior notice if the U.S. State Department received general “diplomatic assurances” that the destination country would not torture the individual.
- In May 2025, the government deported several class members to South Sudan, a country that had only existed for a few days at the time some class members’ immigration proceedings had originally concluded.
Procedural History
Filings, adjudications, denials, approvals. The class-action complaint was filed on March 23, 2025, along with motions for class certification and preliminary injunctive relief.
Appeals, motions, or remands. The District Court initially issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 28, 2025. Afterwards, on April 18, 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to give CAT claims notice and a chance to be heard prior to removals to third countries. Following government violations of these orders, the Supreme Court eventually stayed the preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025. Ultimately, the First Circuit remanded the preliminary injunction to the District Court for dissolution so the court could issue a final merits judgment.
Jurisdictional posture. The government filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims. The government argued that INA § 1252 stripped the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied this motion. Importantly, the court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear class-wide policy challenges.
Legal Issues Presented
Clearly framed legal questions
- Can DHS lawfully deport noncitizens to undesignated third countries without providing prior notice or an opportunity to assert claims for withholding of removal or CAT protection?
- Do the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the INA and FARRA prevent federal district courts from reviewing systemic agency policies governing removal procedures?
Statutes, regulations, or policies at issue
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 1231(b)(2) (removal destination sequences), INA § 1231(b)(3) (restriction on removal to countries threatening life or freedom), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Decision Summary
Outcome. The Court granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to dismiss. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment regarding the core APA policy challenges.
Holding. DHS’s third-country removal policy is unlawful because it violates the INA, FARRA regulations, and constitutional due process guarantees.
Orders or instructions issued. The court formally vacated DHS’s March 30, 2025, and July 9, 2025, policy memoranda. In addition, the court issued declaratory judgments affirming that class members possess a right to meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise country-specific fear claims before removal to any third country. The judgment was stayed for 15 days to allow the government time to seek appellate review.
Legal Reasoning and Analysis on Third-Country Removal Policy
Step-by-step reasoning: First, the court established jurisdiction, noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) protects discretionary executive actions from judicial review, but does not shield systemic policy rules that violate statutory mandates. Second, the court analyzed INA § 1231(b)(2), which dictates “four consecutive removal commands” for selecting a destination country. Third, under § 1231(b)(3), the government is barred from removing a person to a country where their life or freedom is threatened. The court reasoned that DHS cannot accurately assess this threat level without giving the noncitizen an opportunity to provide input.
Interpretation of law and policy: Regarding CAT relief, the court held that FARRA regulations do not permit DHS to rely on generalized, blanket “diplomatic assurances” to bypass individual hearings. Because torture risks are highly fact-dependent, the law requires individualized determinations.
Treatment of evidence and credibility: The court heavily criticized the government for procedural gamesmanship. The court noted instances where DHS secretly removed individuals while in transit, and provided the court with false information under oath regarding a plaintiff’s fear of removal.
Use of precedent: Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court weighed the profound private liberty interests (protection from torture or death) against the government’s administrative burdens. The court concluded the risk of erroneous deprivation was unacceptably high, cementing the constitutional requirement for notice and a hearing.
Practical Implications on Third-Country Removal Policy
Impact on applicants, petitioners, employers. DHS is legally prohibited from executing “surprise” deportations to unannounced third countries. Noncitizens possess a judicially recognized right to know their precise removal destination before deportation occurs.
Documentation and compliance considerations. If DHS attempts to redesignate a removal country, the agency must provide adequate time for the noncitizen to document and present a Withholding of Removal or CAT claim specific to that new country.
Risk mitigation guidance. Immigration practitioners must carefully track the specific countries designated in a client’s final removal order. In addition, if DHS attempts to deport an individual to an alternative country not previously litigated, practitioners must immediately assert fear-based claims to halt the removal. Immigration lawyers should also be aware that immigration officials can make mistakes during law enforcement operations.
How can an immigration lawyer from the Immigration Professional Association help?
Navigating the complexities of removal proceedings and fear-based claims requires sophisticated legal intervention. Especially when immigration enforcement agencies have broad control over immigration data. An experienced immigration lawyer from the Immigration Professional Association can protect your fundamental due process rights by ensuring DHS strictly adheres to statutory protocols. We can assist in meticulously preparing applications for Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protections tailored to specific country conditions.
If DHS attempts to alter your designated country of removal without proper notice, our legal team is equipped to seek immediate administrative or injunctive relief to halt unlawful deportations. We thoroughly audit final orders of removal to challenge government reliance on unverified diplomatic assurances. Contact us today to ensure your life and liberty are aggressively defended at every stage of the immigration process.
