Summary
On three flights between February 12 and 15, 2025, the United States government expelled 299 third-country nationals (in this report, meaning people who are neither citizens of the US nor Panama) to Panama. They were all people who had crossed the US border with Mexico since the inauguration of President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. On Inauguration Day President Trump proclaimed an “invasion” of “aliens” was taking place at the US-Mexico, suspended the entry of all “illegal” border crossers, and ordered that they would not be allowed to apply for asylum if doing so would permit their continued presence in the United States. The proclamation sits in obvious tension with the asylum provision in US law, which guarantees the right to seek asylum to anyone arriving at the border regardless of their status or method of arrival.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 48 of the 299 third-country nationals expelled from the US to Panama. All those Human Rights Watch interviewed had intended to seek asylum in the United States and many had gone to great effort to communicate to the US authorities their desire to seek asylum and the fear of return to their home countries. Even in one case, a gay man provided the US authorities with a written account, in English, of the persecution he had experienced in Russia, but they refused to look at it.
“I asked for asylum repeatedly. I really tried. Nobody listened to me,” said Mina, 27-year-old woman, from Iran. “I didn’t understand why they didn’t listen to me. Then an immigration officer told me President Trump had ended asylum, so they were going to deport us.”
The people we interviewed came from Afghanistan, Angola, Cameroon, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Some appeared traumatized from their experiences, which included rape and other sexual and gender-based violence, imprisonment, the killing of close relatives, domestic abuse, and persecution on grounds of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political opinion. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) by March 18, 179 of the original 299 expellees had returned to their home countries under the auspices of IOM’s program called “assisted voluntary return,” although the circumstances of their confinement and the “choices” they were presented called into the question the voluntariness of those returns.
The remainder of the group refused to return to their home countries. Whether or not they have sought asylum in Panama—and despite being refused the chance to make asylum claims in the United States—it is accurate and fair to characterize them as asylum seekers. An asylum seeker is a person who claims to be a refugee—to have a well-founded fear of being persecuted—and is asking for protection; authorities need to examine those claims, and, if they recognize their status as a refugee, can grant them asylum. Whether their refugee claims will be heard, in Panama or elsewhere, or ultimately recognized remains unclear. While their claims are pending, however, they need to be protected from forced return.
Although detained for relatively short periods in the United States, these asylum seekers experienced harsh conditions and treatment beyond being denied due process and the right to seek asylum. At best, officials ignored them. They were kept in very cold conditions, prevented from contacting family and lawyers, and either lied to or not told what was happening to them, including when they were handcuffed and shackled and marched onto military planes bound for Panama. These conditions of detention and expulsion were particularly difficult for children.
In Panama, authorities attempted to hold them in what amounted to incommunicado detention first at a downtown hotel in Panama City and, after one week, at an immigration reception station in the Darién province, which borders with Colombia, withholding their phones, preventing them from having visitors, and making other efforts to keep them from contacting the outside world. These efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Their phones were not returned to them until legal action through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and pressure from civil society groups resulted in their release. The Panamanian authorities issued them 30-day “humanitarian permits,” extendable up to 90 days, and told them they should use that time to leave the country, either by returning to their home countries or going to some other country.
The collective expulsions from the United States violated international law and should be remedied by permitting the return of people wrongfully removed to allow them to seek and, if qualified, to be granted asylum in the United States. Panama also has responsibility for the third-country nationals it agreed to take, particularly those who are still on Panamanian territory. These people have the right to seek asylum in Panama and to have a full and fair determination of their refugee claims. The United States should stop violating the principle in US and human rights law of non-return of refugees to face persecution (also called “nonrefoulement”) by allowing anyone arriving at the US border or inside the United States to make a claim for asylum. It should not shirk this responsibility by expelling third-country nationals to countries with far less capacity to assess asylum claims or to provide protection against return to harm to those needing it.
Recommendations
To the US Government
Stop the expulsion or involuntary transfer of noncitizens to third countries to which they have no genuine ties and in the absence of a formal agreement with the receiving state that the person being transferred would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim for asylum or equivalent protection, and that effective protection would be provided for those found to need it. Such expulsions, or transfers, are not permissible in the absence of a formal agreement of access to asylum procedures; even in cases where the country the person being expelled to does not, on its face, present a risk of persecution, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment.
Offer humanitarian or public-benefit parole to any of the 299 individuals who were wrongfully expelled from the United States to Panama to allow them to apply for asylum in the United States.
Respect the right under US law of any person who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States, whether or not at a designated port of arrival, irrespective of the person’s status, to apply for asylum.
Ensure that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) holding cells are used for very short periods of confinement only, which should not exceed 10 hours. CBP should detain individuals overnight in holding cells only when it is unavoidable and should never detain children overnight.
CBP should develop written guidance and implement it in practice to ensure that family members arriving together are subject to a presumption of liberty and not unnecessarily or intentionally separated.
Do not use physical restraints when transporting noncitizens for immigration enforcement purposes in the absence of a reasonable, individualized basis for regarding the person as a danger to themselves, the crew, or other passengers. Ensure that noncitizens being detained or transported are treated humanely and with dignity, including by providing them with food and water, and are kept in reasonable temperatures with sufficient air circulation.
Always return passports and other documents and possessions to non-citizens who are being removed from the United States.
To the Panamanian Government
Cease the acceptance of third-country nationals from the United States. If such transfers are resumed, ensure that they occur only pursuant a formal agreement that stipulates strict adherence to due process and respect for international law, including the availability of full and fair asylum procedures and scrupulous respect for the principle of nonrefoulement.
Do not detain third-country nationals transferred by the United States, or any other country, solely because they were transferred.
Inform any person transported to Panama by the United States of their right to seek asylum in Panama.
Help to facilitate family reunification and/or voluntary repatriation with full and informed consent for those opting to return to their home countries.
Ensure that the people expelled from the US with humanitarian permits have access to free, quality, and rights-respecting medical, psychosocial, and mental health care services.
To the International Organization for Migration (IOM)
Refrain from promoting repatriation under coercive circumstances in which the only alternative option is deportation, since such repatriation cannot be regarded as voluntary.
Refer any person who articulates to IOM a fear of return to their home country to the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, or to national asylum officers.
Methodology
Three Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed forty-eight third-country nationals in private, face-to-face interviews in four locations in Panama, two hotels and two shelters. We interviewed 32 women, 15 men, and 1 child. The interviewees originated from Afghanistan, Angola, Cameroon, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Interviews were conducted in English, Portuguese, or French, or with the use of interpreters. All interview subjects were assured of confidentiality and, accordingly, pseudonyms are used throughout this report even though some interview subjects have revealed their names to journalists. In some cases, we have withheld identifying information, including nationalities, when it was determined this would identify the speaker. Interview subjects were told the interviews were voluntary and could be terminated at any time and they would receive no payment or personal benefit from the interview.
An anonymous Human Rights Watch donor and Al Otro Lado, a migrants’ rights group, paid for hotel rooms and food for three nights for some of those deported. Human Rights Watch helped facilitate the payment of the rooms and food when the group first arrived in Panama City from the San Vicente migrant reception center because otherwise they would have been left on the street in a city where they had no connections or resources. At the time of the interviews, it is unlikely any interviewees were aware that Human Rights Watch had provided financial assistance, although they were aware that our researchers were helping to protect and shelter them.
On March 25, 2025, Human Rights Watch sent letters to the US Department of Homeland Security and to the Panamanian Ministry of Public Security with our findings and asking questions. On March 26, 2025, we sent letters to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), asking about their involvement in this situation. The IOM and UNHCR sections reflect their comments on an earlier draft of this report.
Reasons They Fled Their Home Countries
The 48 third-country nationals interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had been expelled from the United States to Panama came from the following countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Cameroon, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan, countries with serious human rights problems from which recognized refugees have fled.
Each person has their own story about the circumstances which caused them to leave and journey to the United States. What follows are the accounts people gave in private interviews with Human Rights Watch, accounts which, if true, indicate people who fled persecution for reasons including ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, family associations, or political opinions. Despite having what appear in many cases to be strong claims for asylum, none of the people we interviewed had so much as a screening interview for asylum, also known as a “credible fear screening” interview, in the United States before being expelled to Panama. Here are samples of the stories we heard when we asked people why they left their countries:
“I studied to become a nurse before the Taliban took control. However, I couldn’t start my practice at the hospital because they prohibited women from doing so. I was forced to stay at home and only go out if accompanied. Girls do not have any rights, not even to fall in love.”
—Bahara, 24-year female nurse from the Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan[1]“The only choice I had was either to go to jail or to leave. When the war [full scale invasion of Ukraine] began in February 2022, I was appalled and posted quite a few comments on social [media] – YouTube and VKontakte – about how this war was wrong and Putin was wrong. I just spoke my mind and did not realize that in my country people would be punished for simply saying what they think. Then, on [date withheld], I got a phone call from the police … I went there the next day … The man said he was from the FSB … He then asked what I thought about the “special military operation” [the invasion] – I said I really didn’t want to talk about it and wasn’t political. So, he handed me several pieces of paper – they were printouts of my critical comments on social. He started asking who inspired me to post those comments, whether I was connected to any subversive organizations. I said: ‘No one, this is just my opinion.’ So, he said, ‘You’ve got two options: either I put you behind bars [under Russia’s war censorship legislation, disseminating “disinformation” about the armed forces is a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment] or you can join the fighting – the army can sure put your skills to a good use.’”
—Boris, a 38-year-old male political dissident and draft evader from Russia[2]“I left China in [date withheld]. Because my parents believed in Christianity, our whole family was implicated, and we were questioned by the authorities. Because my mother believed in Jesus, she was reported and they said that my mother was crazy, so we prayed secretly ... I was not at peace. We went to fight for her rights and we were locked up and beaten.”
—Ling, a 35-year-old Christian woman from China[3]“In 2023, a group of police officers attacked my village. They entered my house and raped me. They shot my father in the leg, leading to his death. My brother was beaten and detained for six days, accused of collaborating with groups advocating for [Anglophone Cameroon’s] separation. In 2024, my village was attacked again, and my house was burned down. I tried to escape but I couldn’t run because I was 29 weeks pregnant. My aunt helping me was shot in the back. I lost my baby due to the situation and was taken to the hospital. I have an arrest warrant [shown to Human Rights Watch] for allegedly aiding the militia.”
—Stephanie, a 32-year-old woman from the Anglophone minority in Cameroon[4]“I lived in [name of town withheld], in the Amhara region. I ran a business and had two children and a husband. One day, my husband and my brother were kidnapped, and I don’t know where they are. My father was also taken, I believe, by the Fano militia. I sold everything to pay for his release, but he was killed and left on the street anyway. The militia forbade people from burying him for several days. When I was four months pregnant, I was taken and raped by three militia men. I experienced severe pain. I began bleeding and had a miscarriage. I was detained for 23 days, and one day after I fainted, they dropped me on the streets. I wanted to report everything to the police, but neighbors warned me it was best to leave … After I left, my house was robbed, and everything was taken.”
—Senayit, a 37-year-old Amhara woman from Ethiopia[5]“In Iran, we have two intelligence services. They know everything, even who has converted in hidden churches. They have a lot of information. I went to a different province and the Basij [a security force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The IRGC is a security and military body that runs its own intelligence organization] went to my old house to search for me. I can’t get many jobs in Iran because of my tattoos. No government jobs are open to me. Once when I only had one tattoo I went for a job at a bank. They told me they wouldn’t hire anyone with a tattoo, and I would have to get it removed. So, I burned it off. [He shows the scar.] Then, when I went back to the same bank, they told me they would not hire me because I was mentally unstable because I had intentionally burned my body.”
—Ali, a 25-year-old male Christian convert from Iran[6]“I was in the Afghan [National] Army in the years before the Taliban re-took control [in 2021]. That is why my life was in danger. I spent 10 years in the army. During this time, I worked closely with the US forces. I was based in many places during the 10 years I was in the army, including Helmand, Farah, Badghis, Ghor, Uruzgan, Kandahar, and Wardak.... Since I left, I know from my relatives that Taliban have come to my home to ask my family where I am. They have gone two or three times to my home asking about me. I cannot go back to my country. In Afghanistan, the Taliban would kill me.”
—Imran, 34, a former Afghan National Army soldier from Afghanistan[7]“I was forced to marry at a very young age to an older man who abused and beat me. I had four children, ages 10, 9, 7, and 4, and suffered miscarriages due to stress and beatings. When I tried to return to my family, my husband found me and took me back home, nearly killing me with a knife.”
—Asha, a 27-year-old female survivor of domestic abuse from Somalia[8]
The United States
Denied the Right to Seek Asylum in the US
The 48 people Human Rights Watch interviewed were expelled from the United States to Panama on February 12, 14, or 15, 2025. They told Human Rights Watch they were not interviewed about the reasons for leaving their countries or asked if they had a credible fear of returning to their countries of origin. US law requires that a US asylum officer perform a preliminary screening for asylum, called a credible fear interview, if a person indicates an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution.
None of the people we interviewed made any attempt to evade capture; to the contrary, most said that they stayed where they were after crossing the first wall or fence and waited for US Border Patrol agents to find them. Some recalled raising their hands and saying “Refugee” or “Asylum” in English as they were being apprehended at the border between Tijuana and San Diego.
The following account by a 30-year-old Iranian man who crossed on February 4, 2025, with his 29-year-old wife, is typical:
We presented ourselves right away to the Border Patrol. I recognized them as Border Patrol from their uniforms. We did not run away. We asked them for asylum right away. They shined a light in our face and made us hold up our passports to our faces so they could take photos. All the time they were doing this, we said in English, “We are refugees. We are refugees.”[9]
Arun, a 36-year-old male [ethnic group withheld] from [country withheld] who told Human Rights Watch he had been abducted and tortured by the military forces in his country, described in English his repeated efforts to claim asylum from his first encounter with the Border Patrol shortly after crossing into Texas on February 11, 2025, during his three days of detention in the United States and while being expelled to Panama:
As soon as I crossed, the US Border Patrol was there. They asked me if I had a knife or a gun. I said, “No, I am a refugee, and I want asylum.” I raised my hands. They checked my bag. I was with a group of nine people. I showed them my passport and tried to show them I was being helpful. They took my passport and took me to a detention center in McAllen, Texas.
When I got there, they took my fingerprints and photo, asked my date of birth, nationality and if I had US relatives. I told them I have a brother in the US, and I gave his phone number to the Border Patrol. They took my phone, but I told them all my documents are on my phone. I said, “Please, sir, can I go to the court for asylum?” They said, “You should stay in your country. You can’t come to our country, and we will send you back.”
He was a Border Patrol official who said this. They were all Border Patrol. I told them my life is in danger in my home country and that my life was threatened. I told them my brother has refugee status in the United States. I said, “I want to go to a court of law to file an asylum claim with them.” I think of the United States as a democratic country with freedom and I believed they would treat me as a refugee, but they treated me in an inhumane manner.
They scanned all my documents. I gave them my passport, my phone, all my documents, but they did not give my documents back to me when they sent me away. I am now undocumented, and the US Border Patrol is responsible for that.
I spent one night in that detention center.
The next day they took me in handcuffs and leg shackles on a bus. I was not allowed to talk. I was detained a total of three days in the United States and then they deported me to Panama. When they sent me to Panama they gave me no documents, no statement, nothing. They didn’t investigate my claims. They didn’t present me with any documents saying why I was being deported. They treated me like an animal. They should be held accountable. They didn’t give any of us any answers. Every US official I saw I told that my brother is a lawful permanent resident who was recognized as a refugee and has been in the US for 15 years and that he would sponsor me.
The US still has my passport and has made me an undocumented person here in Panama where I now have 30 days to leave the country.[10]
In another case, a group of nine Russian asylum seekers, three single men and a family with four children, including a 4-month-old child, drove in a vehicle to the US-Mexico border at the Calexico border check point, handed their passports to the US official at the booth, and asked for asylum. They were told to get out of the car, at which point the adults were immediately handcuffed. The driver of the car, Boris, recalled:
I only asked for political asylum when I first spoke to the woman in the booth who I gave our passports to. I said the words “political asylum” in English as soon as I crossed to the woman in the booth. I didn’t keep asking for political asylum again because I didn’t understand what was happening. It was very confusing; nobody explained anything to me, to anyone.[11]
Boris said that from the time he drove up to the booth and asked for asylum until being put on the plane for Panama that US officials made no attempt to communicate to him in Russian. “They were not rude or threatening, but they didn’t explain anything to us. They did not use an interpreter or a phone app to talk to us. They only spoke to us in English and by using gestures.”[12]
Another person in the car with Boris was Ivan, a gay man. Ivan said he had faced violence in Russia due to his sexual orientation, including multiple discriminatory encounters with the police leading to beatings so severe that he was hospitalized. Before reaching the US-Mexico border, he had documented his experiences in a four-page, typed account (on file with Human Rights Watch). “During my arrest, while they were going through my bag I also asked for political asylum,” Ivan told Human Rights Watch. “I told them there were things in my bag to support my asylum. I was frustrated. I said I wanted political asylum two times to two different officers. I said, ‘Please check my bag. I have documents with my story in English.’”
Ivan said that he was afraid and very nervous:
They would not take my papers. They ignored them. I was handcuffed with my hands behind my back. They chained my legs to a bench and searched my whole body before they brought us to the bench. They searched inside our bags. I said, “In my bag is my asylum story,” but they ignored it. They fingerprinted and photographed me. There was no Russian translator, no information, no translation, nothing about political asylum.[13]
Other people were confused, intimidated, or hesitant to appear impolite or uncooperative by calling more loudly for asylum, expecting that they would have interviews where they would be able to tell US officials why they feared return to their countries. Ahmad, who was threatened by the Taliban in Pakistan, said, “I raised my hands and said, ‘I want asylum,’ as soon as I crossed from Mexico to the US on February 9, 2025, at Tijuana.” He said that the US Border Patrol took him to a detention center in Los Angeles where he stayed for two days.
Ahmad said the man at the detention center who was wearing a police uniform rather than civilian clothes “only asked how much money I had and how I came to the US. They took my fingerprints and photographed me. They only asked how I came, some basic biographical information, nothing more. They didn’t tell me anything about my rights. During this interview, I said again, ‘I want asylum.’ [The uniformed official] said, ‘Okay,’ but didn’t ask why I left Pakistan or why I asked for asylum.”[14]
Chinese asylum seekers interviewed by Human Rights Watch for this report had minimal communication with US authorities. Mei, a Chinese woman who was too afraid to provide her age or other identifying information to Human Rights Watch, told of her isolating experience as an asylum seeker in the United States, made more difficult by the language gap:
The only Chinese translator I saw from my arrest on February 2 until my deportation on February 13 was when they took my fingerprints, but I didn’t get a chance to talk to that person, to get any information or to tell anything. I didn’t say anything about asylum because I couldn’t talk to anyone. No one told me I could have a lawyer.
My fear of losing my freedom was terrible. I was scared. I did not have an interview. No one told me I could hire a lawyer. I didn’t come to the US to make money but to find freedom. I love freedom. I am a Christian and I yearn for freedom.
I may not be a legal immigrant, but the US has a legal system, but I did not see it. Nobody told me anything. They didn’t allow me to say anything. Nobody gave me any documents, even when they deported me. Nobody told me where I was going. I am very disappointed. It was not like what Biden said about protecting people.[15]
US officials just ignored Stephanie, a Cameroonian woman who said she had been raped in Cameroon by police who also killed her father and beat and arrested her brother. Stephanie had crossed the US border to seek asylum, but from the time of her apprehension and during her 19-day detention, she was never allowed to speak to her family, a lawyer, or an asylum officer. “Nobody cared why I entered the U.S., and nobody asked,” she said.[16]
“I asked for asylum repeatedly. I really tried. Nobody listened to me,” said Mina, 27-year-old woman, from Iran. “I didn’t understand why they didn’t listen to me. Then an immigration officer told me President Trump had ended asylum, so they were going to deport us.”[17]
Some of the people interviewed by Human Rights Watch had made asylum appointments through the telephone app called CBP One, only to have their appointments canceled upon Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president. One of them, Samira, an Iranian Christian convert and survivor of domestic abuse, showed Human Rights Watch her CBP One appointment: January 31, 2025, 4:30 pm at the Nogales, Arizona port of entry. She had waited and did not attempt an irregular crossing prior the Trump inauguration because she had wanted to enter legally using CBP One, but the appointment was cancelled on inauguration day, January 20. After crossing the border irregularly on February 4, 2025, she said that no US official at any point asked her any questions. “I had no interview in the United States, she said. “I talked to no lawyers, no officials. I was given no document to sign. I wanted to become a refugee, but they never talked to me. I did not say ‘refugee’ because I thought they knew everyone coming wants asylum in the US.”[18]
Kaasheen, a 21-year-old woman from Afghanistan, said she noticed a paper on the wall in her US immigration detention center stating the right to speak to a lawyer and asked the officials about it, but they denied her request. Mina, the 27-year-old Iranian woman, said the same, telling us, “On the wall I saw a sign telling us our rights. It said we can see our family. It also said we can make phone calls, including to a lawyer. The US immigration officers never let us do any of these things, even when we asked.”[19]
Collective Expulsion
None of the third-country nationals expelled from the United States to Panama interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that the US government had provided them any document indicating a deportation order or the legal authority for their removal.
In March 2025, the New York Times quoted a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, as saying in an email that the migrants had been “properly removed” from the United States and that “not a single one of these aliens asserted fear of returning to their home country at any point during processing or custody.”[20] However, there is no evidence of a legal order of removal or any indication of due process to suggest they were “properly removed,” per the statement of the DHS spokesperson. If they were removed under “expedited removal” – under a provision in US immigration law, Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 235(b)(1) – anyone who indicated an intention to apply for asylum or expressed a fear of persecution or torture upon return to their country should have been referred to a US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) asylum officer for an interview to determine if they had a credible fear of persecution. That did not happen.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation saying:
I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this proclamation are restricted from invoking provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.[21]
Further to the presidential proclamation, field guidance issued to the US Border Patrol on February 4, 2025, said:
Proclamation 10888, Guaranteeing the States Protection against Invasion, suspends and limits entry of all illegal aliens encountered by U.S. Border Patrol between the ports of entry at the southern land border. This applies to all illegal aliens who entered the United States after 1800 hours EST January 20, 2025. The entry of any illegal alien invading the United States (which is defined as an alien who crosses between the ports of entry on the southern land border) is suspended pursuant to section 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA.
Aliens participating in this invasion are also restricted from invoking INA provisions that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including discretionary relief. The Proclamation specifically identified section 208 of the INA, and directs that aliens invading the United States are not permitted to apply for asylum.[22]
These Trump administration policies violate international law and rest on a dubious foundation under US domestic law that is already being tested in court. Section 208 of the INA guarantees, in law, the right of any person who arrives at or enters the United States to seek asylum irrespective of their immigration status, which cannot simply be eliminated by a presidential proclamation:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.[23]
The US Supreme Court has said section 212(f) of the INA cannot be used to “expressly override particular provisions of the INA,” including section 208.[24] It is unclear how the Trump administration will attempt to argue the legality of this proclamation considering that reality.
On March 28, a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a nationwide temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security from removing any individual subject to a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, unless and until that person is provided with written notice of the third country to which they may be removed, and until they are provided “a meaningful opportunity ... to submit an application for CAT [Convention Against Torture] protection” and until a final decision is made on that application.[25]
This temporary restraining order makes the principled point that no one should be removed from the United States without having had an opportunity to seek protection from being tortured. However, it does not directly address the circumstances faced by the group expelled to Panama that is the subject of this report or similarly situated people in the future. None of them, as far as Human Rights Watch can determine, were ever issued with a final order of removal prior to being expelled. Their expressions of fear and desires to seek asylum in the United States should have been acknowledged and they should have been referred for credible fear interviews with the opportunity to seek asylum in the United States; their remedies should not be limited to protection from being tortured.
Detention Conditions
All third-country nationals Human Rights Watch interviewed said they were apprehended shortly after entering the United States, in most cases after they set foot on US soil. In all cases, to the extent they were able to identify the officials who took them into custody, they identified them as the US Border Patrol, except for a carload of Russians who requested asylum at an official crossing point where Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials from the Office of Field Operations normally are stationed. None of the third-country nationals in Panama interviewed by Human Rights Watch had spent more than three weeks in the United States after being taken into custody by these US officials at the border.
The people we interviewed entered the US either between Tijuana and San Diego or along the Mexico-Texas border and were taken to detention centers where conditions were harsh. Stephanie from Cameroon, who was detained in San Diego, said that body searches were conducted by male officers and that she couldn’t shower for days. She said guards banged on the doors at night, preventing her from sleeping, and they were not given toothbrushes. She said officers mocked her, saying, “You smell.”[26]
We heard similar accounts from others. For instance, Rosy, a 33-year-old woman from Cameroon, said that her treatment “was so bad I can’t even explain it. The food, you couldn’t eat what they gave us. You couldn’t change clothes. It was a couple of days before we could even take a shower. It was very cold. When you requested to make a call, they said we couldn’t. They shout at you, even for nothing at all.”[27]
Mariam, a woman from Afghanistan, told Human Rights Watch:
The lights were on all the time. Sometimes they would wake us up at 3:30 a.m. Then they would wake us again for breakfast. Thirty minutes later they would wake us up to scan our bracelets. Every two or three hours they came in and knocked on the door very loudly to get us up. Sometimes this was for meals, sometimes they counted us, sometimes they would call somebody’s name and take them out. It was impossible to sleep for more than two or three hours at a time. It was disorienting. We never knew whether it was night or day.[28]
Several of the people spoke about being kept in very cold rooms when first being detained. Zhi, a Chinese man, said, “I told them I was very cold, and I only had short sleeves, so they told me to use tin foil [Mylar] and use more tin foil. However, the tin foil was not breathable and I soon started sweating and became very wet. When I opened the tin foil, I was very cold again.”[29]
Sandra, a 24-year-old woman from Cameroon, told us:
My clothes were stained when I arrived. I washed them in the sink. The camp was very cold, too cold for me to wear the wet clothes, so I asked if I could get a change of clothes from my bags. The officer looked at me and said, “Who washed those clothes?” I said I had washed them because they were stained. He said, “You have to put them back on just like that. That’s the consequence for your action.” I asked another officer who was a little nicer, but he just shrugged his shoulders and said I had already been told no. I asked another lady, and she also said no. It was very cold because of the air conditioning.[30]
According to our interviews, upon entering the detention center, officials asked people for basic biodata such as their names, asked that they provide their IDs, and photographed and fingerprinted them. After this procedure, officials asked them to sign a document on a tablet, which they could not read before signing. Zhi, from China, said, “After being detained in the tent for three hours, they [used a phone translation app to tell me] that I would be sent back regardless of whether I signed it or not.”[31] After processing, according to Eskender, a 27-year-old man from Ethiopia, “They put us in a room and never spoke to us again.”[32]
People described the San Diego detention facility as comprising eight pods made of plastic and wood that held about 60 people each. The guards here wore green uniforms. “We never left the pod for 10 days,” said Farhad, 30, from Iran. “I was in pod #7 and my wife was in pod #8. We were not allowed outside the pod. We kept asking for asylum. I told them I had the name of a lawyer and asked permission to call him. But they would not allow me to call the lawyer. I didn’t see my wife for 10 days.”[33]
Kaasheen, a 21-year-old woman from Afghanistan experiencing trauma, told Human Rights Watch that she spent ten days in the San Diego detention facility. “I never saw the sky in those days. I just wanted to see the sky.” She also said she was denied the use of showers and not provided a toothbrush and other basic necessities. They also confiscated her phone, leaving her unable to inform anyone of her situation.[34]
US immigration holding cells are particularly inappropriate for children,[35] and the San Diego facility is no exception. Parents said their children had difficulty sleeping in the noisy, crowded, bright cells. As Border Patrol agents entered their cells frequently, shouting commands and slamming doors, children quickly became jumpy and apprehensive. The food, mainly microwaved burritos, was not suitable for young children, and parents often struggled to get children of any age to eat enough each day.[36]
As Farhad’s account above describes, Border Patrol agents place adult men, teenage boys and girls, and mothers and younger children in separate cells, meaning that families are often separated. For instance, Zain, a 33-year-old Iranian man detained with his wife and 8-year-old son, told Human Rights Watch, “They separated me from my wife and child. I was in a small room, and they were in another one ... I asked to see my family many times. After four days they finally let us see each other, just for 15 minutes.”[37]
These detention facilities were designed for short-term stays by adults and in fact were not designed for overnight custody.[38] Under CBP standards issued in 2015, detention in immigration holding cells should “generally” last no longer than 72 hours.[39] As detailed earlier in this section, the people interviewed by Human Rights Watch described periods of detention well in excess of that standard. Mariam, who was held for 18 days with her extended family, including her 1-year-old nephew, in the San Diego detention center, asked, “Where are the human rights when a 1-year-old baby is in jail?”[40]
Panama
Transfer to Panama
All those interviewed told us once they were put on US military planes, they had no idea where they were being flown. Interviewees told Human Rights Watch they realized they were in Panama only after landing by recognizing the Panamanian flag or the Panamanian officers from SENAFRONT or by being told their location.
Kaasheen, a 21-year-old woman from Afghanistan, recalled what transpired the morning she was loaded onto a US military plane. After having been detained for ten days, she said officers came and called off names and had the detainees line up. Kaasheen said, “When they called my name that morning, I was so happy because I thought they were going to release us.”[41]
Boris, 38, from Russia, told Human Rights Watch that on February 14 he was chained hands-to-waist and at the ankles and put on a bus for two and a half hours and brought to an airport near Los Angeles. The bus then parked and he and his fellow detainees were forced to wait on the bus for another six or seven hours, during which time “we were not given anything to eat or drink and no explanation of anything.”[42]
Zain, a 33-year-old Iranian man, said, “Before we flew, the officers put me in handcuffs and put chains around my waist. This was really painful because my children and wife were there.”[43] Others, including people without children of their own, observed that the experience of seeing their parents in chains was traumatizing for children.[44]
Officials either ignored questions about where people were being taken or said to some of the people in San Diego that they were being transferred to a detention center in Texas. No one was told they were going to Panama. Indra, a 19-year-old man from Nepal, described the flight to Panama:
After 15 days, the Border Patrol came and read our names. We formed a line of 119 people. The police then put our hands and legs in shackles. They never gave us any document, no paper. I asked the Border Patrol where we were going. He said, “We are sending you to Texas.” They put us into a military airplane. It said ARMY on the plane. There were ten army soldiers on the plane. We did not know where we were going for four or five hours. When we asked, they only said, “We don’t know.” People were crying. Men and women both were handcuffed. Only the children were not in cuffs.[45]
There were three flights from the US to Panama. All the men Human Rights Watch interviewed said that they were handcuffed with their wrists bound in front of them at the waist, as well as leg shackles. Some women told us they were not handcuffed or shackled.[46] “We were chained the whole time on the plane,” said Yoel, a 32-year-old man from Eritrea. “We were offered a sandwich, but I couldn’t eat it because my wrists were chained too close to my waist, and it was difficult to stretch to reach it.”[47]
Detention Conditions
The third-country nationals were unshackled shortly before disembarking in Panama. As they disembarked, they walked between two rows of uniformed men in what the migrants described as army uniforms, consistent with those of the Panamanian National Border Service (Servicio Nacional de Fronteras, SENAFRONT). They were ushered onto buses and taken to the Decapolis Hotel in downtown Panama City where, depending on the arrival time of their flight, they stayed from as early as February 12 until February 18, 2025.
Esther, 25, from Cameroon, told Human Rights Watch that she and others held at the Decapolis Hotel were not allowed to speak to their families or lawyers. She said she saw another woman handcuffed for crying and asking for her phone.[48]
The people were confined to their hotel rooms except for meals. While they were in the hotel, they did not have access to their phones, which US Border Patrol had taken and transferred to Panamanian officials. They said that they were not allowed to call lawyers or family on the outside unless they accepted assistance from the International Organization for Migration to repatriate. Those who accepted repatriation were allowed to use IOM phones to call their families.
Some of the people figured out how to use email accounts on the hotel TV sets to send messages to relatives, who in turn contacted lawyers and journalists, alerting them to their presence in Panama City. Some lawyers tried to enter the hotel, but the authorities would not allow them to enter or to communicate with their clients.
On February 18, 112 of the third-country nationals who refused to return to their home countries were transported from the Decapolis Hotel to the San Vicente Migrant Reception Station (Estación de Recepción Migratoria, ERM) in the Darién province, which borders Colombia, where they were detained. The San Vicente detention center was previously used to shelter migrants and asylum seekers moving north through the Darién Gap, a swampy and perilous jungle at the Colombia-Panama border.
Human Rights Watch research on the Darién Gap previously found that detention conditions at San Vicente included housing structures in poor condition, lack of lighting, insufficient separation between latrines and showers for men and women, and lack of properly staffed health centers. These detention conditions endangered migrants and asylum seekers staying at San Vicente.[49]
The Panamanian authorities continued to refuse to give the third-country nationals their phones, so they continued to be cut off from the outside world until the Red Cross gave people the opportunity to make three-minute phone calls to connect with their families.
A 35-year-old Chinese woman described the transfer to San Vicente and the conditions in the new detention center for the female asylum seekers detained there:
At about 11pm on [February] 18th, a soldier suddenly knocked on the door [in the hotel]. The phone app translator said they would take us to another hotel. I was so scared that I cried. A bus drove all night to the refugee camp [the San Vicente detention center]. The conditions there were very bad and very hot. There were more than 70 women living there. There were no electric fans, windows were not allowed to be opened, and there were mosquitoes biting us.
The water we drank was also tap water, which smelled like disinfectant. The rice we ate was not cooked, and the bread we ate in the morning was not cooked. One day the rice was rotten, but the guard said it was okay and we could eat it.
The conditions were very bad, all cold water, no doors in the bathrooms, and only one toilet has a door. Some families have boys, who are ten or eleven years old, and still live with us. There was no privacy at all.
We talked to the guards there, and we asked them when we would leave, but they said they didn’t know. At first, a few guards were very caring and friendly to us, but after a week, some of them were replaced. I felt discriminated against.[50]
The men in the San Vicente detention center were kept in a large room with one fan. They had bunk beds with dirty mattresses and no sheets. Nearly everyone interviewed described conditions there as hot and dirty with an acute lack of privacy in the bathrooms. Hamza from Afghanistan said:
Even to go to the toilet, we needed to have a guard escort us. The bathrooms were without doors. Right across from the toilet without a door was the open shower. There was no privacy for the person using the toilet or the person using the shower. In our country, there is nothing like that.
The sleeping room where we stayed was made of metal. It was very hard. There were no air conditioners, and it was very hot. I had a bed. I was in a room with capacity for 85 people but there were only 25 of us in the room. The food was not good. The main problem was the small amount. We asked for more, but they told us they could not give us bigger portions because the amount was set as a rule by the Panamanian government.[51]
Neither the Decapolis Hotel nor the San Vicente detention center was suitable for children. They provided few, if any, opportunities for recreation or other activities. Children held there did not attend school.
The parents of younger children said they struggled to get their children to eat unfamiliar food. “My children did not eat enough in the Darien camp. For the first four days, they didn’t eat,” said Azita, a 32-year-old Iranian woman.[52] Parents also said that the heat and humidity were hard for their children to handle. For instance, Hadicha, a 35-year-old woman from Uzbekistan, told Human Rights Watch:
My children had swelling and rashes on their arms and back all the time from allergies. The Red Cross helped us. They had a car that came to the camp, and they gave us cream and pills. The medicine helped my children. But the medical guy who we saw told me the allergies were my fault because I hadn’t washed or changed my children’s clothes. He said I was not taking good care of my children because I was not washing their clothes. But we didn’t have a place to wash clothes, and we didn’t have a change of clothes.[53]
Moreover, as in the United States, the experience of detention was disturbing for children. Hadicha explained, “We had two rooms we could move around in, but they were surrounded by iron bars. Sometimes we were allowed outside, but then a guard had to accompany us. Any time we were outside, the police followed us.”[54] Marwa, a 19-year-old woman from Afghanistan, observed that in the first few days after Panamanian authorities sent most people back to Panama City, “the children thought at first we would still be followed around by police if we left our rooms. They were very traumatized by this.”[55]
Between March 8 and March 11, the Panamanian authorities released the detainees from San Vicente, put them on buses and dropped them in Panama City, except for two or three people who refused to sign the temporary permit forms.
The Temporary Humanitarian Permit
Under the pressure of a legal challenge brought before the InterAmerican Commission for Human Rights, international press attention, and pressure from advocacy groups, the Panamanian government decided to issue 30-day “humanitarian permits” to the third-country nationals at the San Vicente detention center who were willing to sign it, and to bus them to Panama City, where they would be on their own.[56]
The humanitarian permit allows the permit holder to have freedom of movement in Panama for 30 days, during which time they are expected to arrange their return to their home country or relocation to a third country. Human Rights Watch reviewed some of the permits, which stated that in cases of “force majeure” or “unforeseeable circumstances,” the permit may be extended for 90 days with prior authorization from the director general of the migration office. According to a statement from the Ministry of Security, “After 90 days have passed, those who remain in Panama illegally will be deported.”[57] The permit makes no mention of a third option: accessing asylum procedures in Panama.
Human Rights Watch researchers met the asylum seekers at an especially vulnerable and uncertain moment. When they left the detention center in the Darién province, they had no idea where they would go or what they would do in Panama City. Many were frightened by that prospect, on top of layers of uncertainty and misinformation in the previous days and weeks. None had any idea if their permits would be extended or what criteria they might need to meet to be granted an extension.
Human Rights Watch researchers and various church and civil society groups met the buses upon their arrival in Panama City and helped to facilitate and arrange shelter for three nights. On March 11, these same private groups helped the asylum seekers go to a school converted into a shelter some distance from Panama City run by a Catholic Church organization, Fe y Alegría.
Asylum in Panama
At the time Human Rights Watch researchers were in Panama very few of the third-country nationals had lodged claims for asylum in Panama, some holding out hope they still might be able to apply in the United States, others lacking confidence in Panama’s capacity to provide protection or a place they could rebuild their lives.
Applications for refugee status are submitted to the National Office for Refugee Assistance (Oficina Nacional para la Atención de Refugiados, ONPAR) under the Ministry of Interior. ONPAR gathers information and determines whether cases should proceed to the National Commission for Refugee Protection (Comisión Nacional de Protección para Refugiados, CONARE), composed of cabinet members and other high-level officials, where a full examination of the refugee claim is supposed to occur.[58] However, ONPAR’s admissibility process has been identified as a “major challenge” in Panama’s asylum system, as it evaluates the substance of claims in the first instance rather than applying the lower “manifestly unfounded” standard, which should allow early rejection only of clearly fraudulent or irrelevant applications.[59]
Additionally, Panamanian law does not establish a specific deadline for responding to refugee applications, which, according to UNHCR, take an average of 3.2 years from registration to an admissibility decision, as of May 2023.[60] As of June 2024, 24 percent of all asylum application cases launched since 2018 remained open and only 7 percent had received a decision, according to UNHCR.[61]
Previous Human Rights Watch reporting concluded that Panama’s efforts are focused on facilitating migrants’ and asylum seekers’ prompt transit across the country and appear designed to deter them from lodging asylum claims in Panama. This approach, coupled with a lack of procedural guarantees and basic safeguards, has delayed the asylum process and, in some cases, resulted in the denial of the right to seek asylum. Panama’s asylum system is inadequate and under-resourced, with significantly less capacity to ensure full and fair consideration of asylum claims than the United States.[62]
During the initial stay at the Decapolis Hotel, Panamanian officials avoided giving any indication that seeking asylum in Panama would be an option for members of this group. Some people recalled to Human Rights Watch that they inquired about seeking asylum in Panama but were told that was not an option or that it would require a long time in detention before being eligible to apply. Leila, a Christian convert woman from Iran, said:
We told the Panama officials we wanted to seek asylum in Panama, but they told us we can’t seek asylum in Panama. We said that we had changed our religion to Christianity, and they said we would first have to stay one year in the jungle and then we could apply for asylum in Panama. They keep trying to tell us to go to Turkey, but we are afraid the Turks will deport us. We know Turkey is not fair to refugees and they will deport us.[63]
In another such account, Mariam, a 25-year-old Afghan woman, said, “I asked if I could get asylum in Panama. The immigration authorities told me, ‘Panama can’t accept asylum. You cannot stay in Panama. You have to go back to your own country.’”[64]
Several of the asylum seekers deported by the United States to Panama whom we interviewed had short first-instance asylum interviews with Panamanian authorities while at the Decapolis Hotel that lasted for about ten minutes, followed by an official “resolution of inadmissibility” issued a day later. Three such resolutions reviewed by Human Rights Watch said that the asylum claims were “manifestly unfounded” and did not meet the criteria for refugee status. However, Human Rights Watch interviews of two of these individuals revealed claims that, on their face, would certainly meet any reasonable threshold for a full refugee status determination. For example, Stephanie, a Cameroonian woman, told Human Rights Watch that she had been severely persecuted in her home country. She told Human Rights Watch that a group of police officers had attacked her village in 2023, entered her house and raped her. They shot her father in the leg, leading to his death. They beat her brother and detained him for six days, accusing him of collaborating with groups advocating for Anglophone Cameroon’s separation.
She told us that her village was attacked again in 2024, and that her house was burned down. She showed us videos of the burned house and a woman, who she said was her mother, crying. Stephanie tried to escape but couldn’t run because she was 29 weeks pregnant. An aunt who was helping her was shot in the back. She lost her baby due to the situation and was taken to the hospital. She showed Human Rights Watch an arrest warrant on her for allegedly aiding a separatist militia.
At the Decapolis Hotel, Stephanie recalled a Panamanian official first telling her that asylum in Panama was not an option. Despite this, she was granted an asylum interview on February 25, but ONPAR issued an inadmissibility resolution a day later, on February 26. According to the resolution, she failed to “submit documentation as evidence with her application.”[65] However, she told Human Rights Watch that she had the evidence on her phone but was not allowed to present it when she requested to do so. The evidence included photos proving her house had been burned, documentation of her pregnancy, and a photo of her arrest warrant.
The inadmissibility resolution, reviewed by Human Rights Watch, stated that the circumstances she described did not “meet the elements required for admissibility,” as they were deemed “manifestly unfounded,” despite the fact she tried to show supporting evidence of her claim that ONPAR refused to look at and that the basic outlines of her refugee claim showed relevance and justified a full refugee status determination.[66] The letter further asserted that her case bore “no relation to the criteria for the recognition of refugee status,” that there was “no well-founded fear or element of persecution against her,” and that her reasons for leaving were of a “socio-economic nature” since she expressed a desire to work to support her family.[67] According to what she told Human Rights Watch, her family remains in hiding in Cameroon.
When the officer handed her the resolution, they stated that even if she appealed, the decision would be rejected again.
Others who received asylum rejection notices said Panamanian officials also told them any appeals they submitted would be rejected. For instance, Audrey, 36, from Cameroon as well, showed Human Rights Watch a negative asylum decision she said had been based on a 10-minute interview matching Stephanie’s account. “He told me I could appeal but said not to bother. He said the decision would not change.”[68] Additionally, Sandra, a 24-year-old Cameroonian woman, told Human Rights Watch, “I requested asylum in Panama when I was in the hotel. I had an interview, but they refused me. They said if I appealed, I would not succeed.”[69]
The Role of UN Agencies
The International Organization for Migration (IOM)
After their arrival in Panama, the most prominent official interlocutor the third-country nationals interacted with was the International Organization for Migration (IOM), an intergovernmental organization that became a United Nations related-agency in September 2016. Panamanian officials maintained security and operational control over the third-country nationals at both the Decapolis Hotel and the San Vicente detention center, as well as providing a doctor. However, according to Human Rights Watch interviews, Panamanian officials communicated minimally with the third-country nationals other than taking photos, fingerprints, and basic identifying biographical information except for the several people who stated they had first-instance asylum interviews that lasted for about 10 minutes – see Asylum in Panama, above. IOM, at the request of the Panamanian authorities, provided humanitarian assistance – medication, psychological support, distribution of food kits and of non-food items – as well as assisted voluntary return (AVR), one of its core programs globally.
IOM notes that the third-country nationals were – and for those remaining, still are – within the jurisdiction of the government of Panama and had requested, within that context, IOM “to provide very specific humanitarian assistance upon arrival and in the context of facilitating AVR for those willing to return and subject to whether return is safe for them.”[70]
Human Rights Watch met with IOM in Panama who said that the agency follows strict global standards for AVR that were followed in this case, according to the principles of “Do No Harm,” “safe environments for return,” and “migrants’ agency,” among others. The official said:
IOM’s policy on the Full Spectrum of Return, Readmission and Reintegration is very clear. Voluntary returns are always preferable. AVR, even in the face of constrained options, is preferable to migrants having no choice at all, and is a necessary precondition to safe and dignified return. What matters is to respect migrants’ free and informed consent, which is a prerequisite for any operational support related to return offered by IOM as well as that migrants can change their mind at any point of the process.[71]
All the third-country nationals Human Right Watch spoke to said that IOM presented them with two choices: either to return to their home countries with IOM in regular commercial flights with IOM paying for the tickets or be turned over to the Panamanian authorities, who would detain them and return them forcefully to their home countries.[72] What follows are a sampling of these accounts:
“IOM told us we had two options. Either we could go back to our countries on a regular business plane and IOM would pay for the flight, or if you do not accept to go with IOM, the Panamanian government will deport you by force in handcuffs and shackles. I asked IOM if we could seek asylum. I wrote on a paper to IOM in Panama that I was afraid to go back to Afghanistan. I wrote 4 or 5 pages about my problems in Afghanistan and gave it to an IOM official, and I wrote on it that I want asylum in Panama. We talked to IOM in the hotel, but UNHCR never came there.”[73]—Hamza, a Hazara man from Afghanistan
“On the first day [at the Decapolis Hotel], I had a small interview with IOM. The IOM person told me I have only two options. I can choose to go back to my country. I told them that 100% I would be arrested if I returned. I told them I was LGBT. But IOM only said, ‘We can buy you a ticket to Russia.’ They said, ‘If you refuse to go your country now, we will give your documents to the Panamanian government,[74] and they will take you to a very bad hotel.’ They did not say anything to me about being able to seek asylum in Panama.
The second time I spoke to IOM, I asked them why I am in Panama. I told them I want asylum in the US. They said, ‘You have no other option but to go to your country.’
For a third time, IOM came again. IOM said they would pay for the ticket to go to Russia. They said, ‘This is your last chance to go to your country. If not, you will go to the bad hotel.’ I told them I was afraid to go back to my country. We did not see UNHCR.
[After the transfer to the San Vicente detention center], IOM came to the jungle camp two times. The first time, they said, ‘If you want to leave, you have to accept to go to your own country.’ I asked IOM again for asylum. They said, ‘Sorry, we can only help you go to your country.’ They kept ignoring what I was telling them. I told them again I could not accept to go to my country.
UNHCR was never there. The whole time, IOM asked only one question: “Do you want to return to your country?”[75]
—Ivan, a 28-year-old man from Russia“The UN told us there were two options: a comfortable option and an uncomfortable one. The comfortable option was that the United Nations would buy us business class tickets and we could go to any city we wanted in our home country. The other uncomfortable option was that the UN would hand us over to the Panamanian government. They would forcibly send us back or detain us here for a year or half a year, so many people were scared and went back.”[76]
—Ling, a Christian woman from China“At the Decapolis hotel, IOM told us we had to go back to our countries. We explained the situation in Iran and that we could not go back. We made our case to the New York Times, not IOM. IOM was very angry with us and said, ‘Why did you do this? Now we can’t send you back to your country.’”[77]
—Samira, a 28-year-old Christian convert woman from Iran“At the hotel, IOM came and told us IOM can help us to go back to our home countries. If you are not willing to go, then [Panamanian] Immigration will punish you with detention. They didn’t say something about deportation. I did not see UNHCR. The Panamanian authorities did not interview us at the hotel, only IOM. IOM talked to us one by one.”[78]
—Yoel, a 32-year-old Protestant man from Eritrea
In our interviews, Human Rights Watch heard many similar accounts of the IOM presentations of the options.
IOM officials contradicted these accounts in the meeting with Human Rights Watch in Panama on March 18. “We never gave two options of voluntary return or detention and deportation,” said an IOM official, who added, “It is not our role to tell anyone they will be detained. And we knew they were not going to be deported.”[79]
Another IOM official said their organization, guided by its Policy on the Full Spectrum of Return, Readmission and Reintegration, has suspended assisted voluntary returns to Afghanistan and Eritrea, and that it also has a specific procedure for Iran. “After careful review,” this official said, “AVR was not offered to any of the migrants originating from these countries.” Human Rights Watch interviewed members of all three nationalities, including the Iranian, Afghan, and Eritrean quoted above, and none said IOM had told them AVR was not an option for them.
IOM correctly notes that Human Rights Watch only interviewed people who declined AVR or who IOM contends were not offered AVR. “None of these accounts come from migrants who asked to return voluntarily with IOM and were assisted,” an IOM official said.[80]
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
None of the 48 asylum seekers Human Rights Watch interviewed said they saw any officials for the first week from UNHCR after their arrival at the Decapolis in Panama City. UNHCR officials did reportedly come to the San Vicente detention center after the people had been detained there for more than a week. People said that they were not able to speak with UNHCR officials but that they only came to bring some sheets or blankets to put on the dirty mattresses that they had been sleeping on for the previous week. “The first week, UNHCR did not come at all,” said Hamza from Afghanistan. “Then two or three days before we left, UNHCR came to the detention center, but to a different part of it. I don’t think they talked to any of the refugees. UNHCR didn’t talk to any of us. I never spoke to UNHCR.”[81]
“UNHCR came,” Leila, a 29-year-old Iranian woman recalled, “They brought garbage bags for us to use as blankets. We had no interviews from UNHCR or IOM. No one would talk to us about why we are refugees.”[82]
Many people interviewed by Human Rights Watch articulated refugee claims and a desire to speak with UNHCR. Interviewees reported telling IOM about their fears of returning home, but UNHCR was unavailable to examine their claims due to its lack of a formal role in Panama's asylum process. UNHCR provides training and technical support to ONPAR, the Panamanian refugee authority, but ONPAR handles refugee claim examinations. UNHCR works through nongovernmental partner agencies to provide legal assistance to asylum seekers. In this case, a partner agency worked on submitting reconsideration appeals after ONPAR's decision to declare six asylum applications inadmissible. UNHCR also provided targeted humanitarian support to improve accommodation conditions for the third-country nationals.[83]
Psychological Harm
Many of the third-country nationals Human Rights Watch interviewed described traumatic experiences in their home countries that caused them to embark on a journey with great danger and hardship. Despite refusing the International Organization for Migration's assistance to return home, none had access to a legitimate asylum process to assess their refugee status. This lack of legal recognition left them without protection against deportation and the opportunity for a stable life in the country of asylum.
Some of the people interviewed told Human Rights Watch they were traumatized and that their mental health was affected by their ongoing experiences. What follows are some of the comments made during interviews:
“The most terrible thing is that no one answered my questions. I felt isolated from the whole world. There were no lawyers, no family. Under these circumstances, I had great anxiety. I asked IOM for psychological help. I was having bad thoughts. I had a panic attack in the camp. Self-harm was the only way for me.”
—Ivan from Russia[84]“From the time of my arrest in the US until the Red Cross phone call in Darien, I had no contact with my family. For me, the biggest problem was no telephone. Many times, I asked for my phone, but they just ignored me. They did not push me or shout at me; they just ignored me.”
—Mohan from Nepal[85]“It was very painful for me not to have an opportunity for an interview for my asylum request in the US and to be deported without due process. At the hotel in Panama, we were allowed to leave our rooms only to eat meals…. We had no communication at all with the outside world. We had no rights at all. I was held for 19 days before I got the Red Cross phone call with my family from the Darien camp.”
—Yoel from Eritrea[86]“During my detention in the US, I never spoke to my family or a lawyer and was never asked why I came to the US… I have no documents from my time in the US. Do they even know I was there? After 17 days, I was transferred to California, handcuffed during the journey. I wasn’t mistreated but ignored—no one answered my questions. I was placed on a military cargo plane without any explanation…I was taken to the Decapolis Hotel, where I was confined to my room and couldn’t contact my family… [At the San Vicente detention center], I attempted suicide because I felt overwhelmed… I never expected to be released.”
—Zara [country withheld][87]“I am very anxious and scared. We do not have a good situation now here in Panama. We cannot stay here, and there is no place we can go. I and many others cannot return to our home countries. Because of the stress, I cannot eat. I have experienced a change in my mental situation. Normally, I am very happy, and I have no trouble with eating or sleeping. But now, many nights I don’t sleep, and I have no appetite. Now I am always thinking about the situation in Afghanistan and what I would face if I had to go.”
—Mariam, 25, Afghanistan[88]
Acknowledgments
This report was researched and written by Bill Frelick, director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Division, Martina Rapido Ragozzino, researcher in the Americas Division, and Michael Garcia Bochenek, senior counsel in the Children’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch.
It was edited by Tom Porteous, acting Program director, Alison Leal Parker, deputy director of the US Program, Juan Pappier, deputy director of the Americas Division, Cristian González Cabrera, senior researcher in the LGBT Rights Program, Sahar Fetrat, researcher in the Women’s Rights Division, Nicole Widdersheim, deputy Washington director, and Chris Albin-Lackey, senior legal advisor, provided legal review. Additional research was provided by Tanya Lokshina, deputy director of the Europe and Central Asia Division.
Freddie Salas, associate in the Refugee and Migrants Division, and Johan Romero, associate in the Americas division, provided editing and production assistance, as well as Delphine Starr, Americas editorial officer, for editing the Spanish translation. The report was prepared for publication by Travis Carr, publications officer; Fitzroy Hepkins, administrative manager; and José Martínez, senior administration coordinator.
Human Rights Watch would like to thank Caitlyn Yates for her support during the investigation and her feedback on an earlier version of the report.
Above all, we are deeply grateful to the asylum seekers who have generously shared their stories with us.
