A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a Department of Homeland Security policy that permitted the swift deportation of immigrants to third countries, ruling that individuals must receive adequate notice before being sent to nations where they have no prior ties.

The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit curtails the administration's ability to deport individuals to countries other than their place of origin, particularly when relying on diplomatic assurances from receiving nations.

Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, writing for the panel, stated that an individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution is rendered meaningless without prior notification of the intended destination and a meaningful chance to challenge it. Immigrants have reported being transferred to third countries with minimal to no warning, even when the administration cited diplomatic assurances of safe treatment.

This ruling has significant implications for the administration's recent expansion of third-country deportations. In recent months, the U.S. has secured formal deportation agreements with 35 countries, including Liberia, Ghana, the Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone, a policy that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates.

Savi Arvey, director of policy for refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First, noted that the U.S. has invested nearly $50 million in these deportation agreements. Arvey criticized the practice of sending refugees to nations described as dangerous and run by corrupt autocrats, where they allegedly face arbitrary detention and return to persecution and torture, suggesting it demonstrates a disregard for due process, international law, and human dignity.

Previously, ABC News reported on a group of Latin American men deported to the Central African Republic. These individuals stated they were not informed of their destination until several hours into their flight. One man, Aristides Fernandez Garcia, described the experience as feeling kidnapped and a violation of all human rights.

The policy change comes as the administration has increasingly relied on third-country deportations, particularly after securing deals with numerous nations. The legal challenges to these practices center on whether the process affords individuals a fair opportunity to contest their removal to a country where they may face danger.

The court's decision emphasizes the importance of due process in deportation proceedings, particularly when individuals are removed to countries with which they have no connection, potentially exposing them to risks they have sought to avoid.