By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A gay Moroccan woman, Farah, who fled persecution in her home country and sought asylum in the U.S., was deported to Cameroon despite having a protection order from a U.S. immigration judge. She was subsequently flown back to Morocco and is now in hiding, fearing further persecution from her family. This case highlights concerns about U.S. third-country deportations, where individuals with legal protections are sent to other nations without due process, potentially facing renewed danger. While the Trump administration maintained these actions aligned with law, critics argue they violate human rights and international obligations.
Read the original article here
The US deported a gay asylum-seeker to a third country where homosexuality is illegal, a deeply disturbing development that raises significant questions about human rights, due process, and the fundamental principles of asylum law. This case, as presented, reveals a chilling narrative where an individual fleeing persecution based on their sexual orientation was not only denied protection but actively sent to a place where they face continued danger and illegality.
The individual in question is reported to have fled a country where her identity as a gay woman led to severe repercussions. She experienced violence from her own family, was ostracized, and faced life-threatening circumstances solely because of who she is. This harrowing escape led her to seek refuge, first in Brazil and then in the United States, where she formally applied for asylum, hoping for safety and a chance to live without fear.
However, her asylum case was denied by the current administration, leading to her detention and relocation across different states. While a judge had issued a protection order to prevent her deportation back to her home country, the administration’s actions took a different, more alarming turn. Instead of adhering to this protection, she was reportedly “renditioned,” a term specifically used to highlight that her destination was not her country of origin, but Morocco. This distinction is crucial because Morocco is a country where being homosexual is illegal, placing her in immediate peril.
This act raises serious concerns about the US government’s commitment to international obligations and established legal procedures. The description of being “renditioned” to Morocco, a country with which she has no known affiliation, rather than being deported to her home country, suggests a deliberate maneuver to circumvent legal protections. This tactic appears designed to bypass the spirit, if not the letter, of the judge’s order, effectively leaving the asylum-seeker vulnerable to persecution in a new, yet equally dangerous, environment.
The situation is made more egregious by the fact that a protection order was in place, intended to safeguard her from deportation to a place of persecution. The use of a third country, like Morocco, as an intermediary destination, particularly one where her very identity is criminalized, seems to be a calculated strategy to bypass established asylum protocols and international human rights standards. This approach appears to disregard the core purpose of asylum: to offer refuge to those fleeing persecution, not to subject them to further harm or the risk of imprisonment.
The narrative surrounding this deportation underscores a profound concern about the motivations behind such actions. There’s a sentiment that the cruelty itself is the objective, a deliberate infliction of suffering on vulnerable individuals. The use of a third country, like Morocco, to deport someone who is gay, when homosexuality is illegal there, appears to be a blatant disregard for human dignity and safety. This is particularly troubling when contrasted with the initial journey to the United States, where she sought protection from imminent danger.
This incident is not an isolated one, as comparisons are drawn to other instances where individuals seeking refuge have faced similar fates, being sent to countries where they are at risk of persecution. The implication is that this administration views causing human suffering as an acceptable, or even desirable, outcome, rather than upholding humanitarian principles and legal obligations. The lack of transparency and accountability in such cases further fuels public concern and erodes trust in the immigration system.
The suggestion that the US is no longer a safe haven, and that asylum seekers should have foreseen the risks associated with their applications, is a dangerous rationalization. The purpose of seeking asylum is precisely because one’s home country is unsafe, and the legal framework is designed to provide protection based on well-founded fears of persecution. The described actions appear to contradict these fundamental tenets of humanitarian protection and international law.
The complexity of asylum law, including situations like withholding of removal, where a judge may find an individual at risk of persecution but not eligible for full asylum, is acknowledged. However, even in such cases, deportation is permitted only to countries where the individual is not at risk of persecution based on protected grounds. The deportation to Morocco, where homosexuality is illegal, directly violates this principle, suggesting a profound failure in the application of the law.
Ultimately, the deportation of a gay asylum-seeker to a country where homosexuality is illegal represents a stark departure from principles of compassion, justice, and international law. It raises profound ethical questions about the responsibility of nations to protect vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution and highlights the urgent need for a reevaluation of asylum policies and practices to ensure that they align with human rights and legal obligations. The fear and uncertainty faced by the individual in this situation are a testament to the devastating consequences of such policies.