The First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in the case D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Docket No. 26-1212), affecting noncitizens facing removal from the United States. The court's decision requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to follow specific procedures when executing removals to countries not previously designated in removal orders. This ruling is significant as it impacts the rights of many noncitizens who may be at risk of persecution or torture if removed to these third countries.
The court's ruling stems from a class action lawsuit filed by four noncitizens—D.V.D., M.M., E.F.D., and O.C.G.—against DHS. The plaintiffs alleged that DHS had adopted a new policy allowing for removals to third countries without providing adequate notice or the opportunity to contest the removals based on fears of persecution. This policy was outlined in DHS guidance issued in March and July 2025. The plaintiffs argued that this practice violated their rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and other relevant laws.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that DHS must take specific actions when executing third-country removals. The district court found that the removals were unlawful under the APA and ordered DHS to provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity for class members to contest their removal based on fear of persecution or torture.
In its ruling, the First Circuit affirmed most of the district court's judgment but vacated certain declarations regarding DHS's obligation to seek to remove class members to countries they have designated. The court stated, "the representative plaintiffs lack Article III standing as to their 'sequencing' claim." However, the court maintained that DHS must provide notice and an opportunity to contest removals to third countries.
The court's decision has broad implications for noncitizens facing removal. It emphasizes that DHS cannot remove individuals to countries not specified in their removal orders without first providing them with proper notice and the opportunity to present claims of fear of persecution or torture. This ruling reinforces the need for due process in immigration proceedings and ensures that noncitizens have a chance to contest their removals based on legitimate fears.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving noncitizens facing removal. It highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in immigration enforcement and may influence how DHS conducts future removals. The ruling affects not only the plaintiffs in this case but also potentially thousands of other noncitizens who may be subject to similar removal policies.
The ruling can be appealed, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. This case may also lead to related cases as noncitizens and advocacy groups seek to challenge similar policies and practices by DHS.