Fact check: Are asylum seekers being deported by ICE?

1. Why this question matters now — The rise of rapid removals and contested returns

Reporting in 2025 highlights a shift toward faster removals and transfers involving asylum seekers and migrants, with significant legal and humanitarian consequences. One stream of coverage documents people who are eligible for asylum in a neighboring country (Canada) yet remain in U.S. ICE custody because of disputed obligations under bilateral arrangements and refusal by receiving authorities to accept returns ^{[1] [4]}. Another stream documents removals to countries deemed unsafe or where the returnee has little connection, raising questions about accuracy of country determinations and procedural safeguards ^{[2] [5]}. These patterns increase the stakes for asylum seekers and for the agencies charged with enforcement.

2. What advocates and critics are saying — International law and humanitarian alarms

International and humanitarian actors have explicitly criticized U.S. practices as encroaching on the right to seek asylum and potentially violating international obligations. The U.N. refugee agency head framed recent deportation practices as potentially inconsistent with international law and stressed respect for the right of asylum and national sovereignty, signaling diplomatic and legal concerns ^[6]. Domestic groups and lawyers likewise argue that rapid removals and returns to unsafe destinations, or to countries with which detainees lack connections, reflect systemic failures in screening and due process ^{[2] [5]}.

3. How ICE’s courtroom tactics feed deportations — Dismissals and immediate custody

A documented procedural tactic involves ICE attorneys increasingly requesting oral motions to dismiss immigration cases during court appearances; when judges grant dismissals, migrants can be immediately taken into custody and removed. Data show a noticeable uptick in this practice since May 20, 2025, converting what might have been asylum proceedings into expedited removal pathways. The tactical use of dismissals transforms courtrooms into de facto removal triggers, critics contend, because removal follows the dismissal without a full adjudication of asylum claims ^{[3] [7]}. This court-driven route bypasses traditional protections and extends ICE’s operational reach.

4. Individual stories that illuminate the system — Shahriar, the Afghan family, and Surovtsev

Three cases illustrate different failure points: Mahin Shahriar, a Bangladeshi asylum seeker, is stuck in U.S. ICE custody while Canada and Canadian authorities dispute obligations under the safe third country framework ^[1]. An Afghan family eligible for Canadian asylum cannot file claims because of bureaucratic and intergovernmental hurdles, and the U.S. refuses release without Canadian approval ^[4]. Roman Surovtsev, detained after a routine check-in, faces removal to Ukraine — a country he never lived in and one unable to document his citizenship — highlighting errors in nationality determinations and real risks including conscription ^[5]. Each story underscores administrative opacity and human consequences.

5. Evidence of removals to unsafe or inappropriate destinations

Reporting documents instances of removals to countries labeled unsafe or where recipients have tenuous ties, including deportations to South Sudan and attempted removals to Ukraine, raising alarms from humanitarians and legal scholars ^{[2] [5]}. These removals often occur with limited notice and with inadequate opportunity for asylum adjudication, according to accounts. The practice of sending people to potentially dangerous or irrelevant destinations reflects information gaps and operational priorities that may override individualized assessments, generating legal challenges and diplomatic friction ^{[2] [6]}.

6. Government posture and procedural defenses — What ICE and counterparts argue

ICE and enforcement proponents present these measures as legal and necessary tools to enforce immigration law, emphasizing administrative efficiency and border control. In contrast, receiving states or agencies like Canada’s border authorities sometimes assert they have no legal obligation to accept returnees under specific arrangements, producing a standoff in which detainees are left in limbo ^{[1] [4]}. The procedural argument for courtroom dismissals frames them as lawful case management, while critics say they are exploited to circumvent asylum review ^{[3] [7]}.

7. Bigger picture: pattern, policy implications, and what to watch next

Taken together, these reports document a pattern of expedited removals, contested international obligations, and court-driven tactics that materially affect asylum seekers’ fates. The intersecting criticisms—from U.N. officials to immigration attorneys—point to potential legal challenges and diplomatic disputes that may prompt policy adjustments or litigation. Observers should monitor whether dismissal rates and third-country return conflicts continue to rise, whether courts push back on the dismissal tactic, and whether international agencies pursue formal complaints tied to protections for asylum seekers ^{[3] [6] [1]}.

8. Bottom line: are asylum seekers being deported by ICE?

Yes: documented cases and reporting indicate ICE is detaining and removing people who have sought, or arguably could seek, asylum; these removals include transfers to allegedly unsafe countries and returns complicated by international disagreement, and they are increasingly facilitated by courtroom dismissal tactics that accelerate deportation. The trend raises significant due-process and international-law questions and has prompted criticism from legal advocates, the U.N., and affected migrants’ attorneys ^{[1] [2] [3]}.