Migration

The violence prompted 300 Mozambicans to return home by their own means over the weekend, with more than 500 still in the country now beginning the official repatriation process.

At least five Mozambican nationals have been killed in “xenophobic attacks” in South Africa over the weekend, the Mozambican government said, marking the first deaths officially linked to country-wide protests against undocumented immigration.

About 800 Mozambicans got caught up in violence that broke out in the southern coastal city of Mossel Bay on Friday, the government press office said in a statement received on Tuesday.

“Regrettably, seven Mozambican citizens have died, five of them as a direct consequence of the xenophobic attacks and the other two as a result of a road accident, when they were travelling in a private vehicle on their way back to Mozambique,” the statement said.

The violence prompted 300 Mozambicans to return home on Saturday, said the statement.

“The remaining just over 500 have since been sheltered in a safe location in the Western Cape Province, and as of today, 1 June, the process of their repatriation to Mozambique is already underway,” it said.

South African police said on Sunday they were investigating the deaths of two men at an informal settlement in Mossel Bay, a port town about 380km (236 miles) east of Cape Town, where xenophobic attacks had been reported.

They did not say whether the deaths were linked to the protests. It was also not immediately clear what nationalities the two men were.

But the area mayor, Dirk Kotze, voiced “deep concern and dismay at the current xenophobic attacks where people have been murdered, houses burned and families displaced”.

The region has seen anti-migrant protests similar to those reported in the financial capital Johannesburg, Durban and parts of the Eastern Cape province in recent weeks.

South Africa has faced recurring waves of xenophobic violence since 2008, when dozens of migrants were killed and thousands displaced in attacks across the country. Similar flare-ups occurred in 2015 and 2021.

The latest spike in anti-immigrant tensions comes as political parties seek support before local government elections in November.

Athens, Greece – Bashir is a Syrian Muslim who has lived in Greece since 2014. He married a fellow Syrian in the country, and three months ago, they had a son. After years of picking olives and oranges, learning Greek and a trade in metalwork, and finally buying his own equipment to start work as an independent trader, Bashir felt his life was finally coming together.

Two months ago, the authorities handed him a piece of paper asking him to restate his reasons for coming to Greece and why he should now return to Syria.

Bashir, who requested to withhold his surname, had been granted asylum in Greece in 2015 because of the civil war then raging in Syria. The war ended in December 2024, and Bashir became one of 1,200 Syrians whose asylum cases were reopened in February.

“It’s a catastrophe,” he told Al Jazeera. “I don’t understand how this can happen. If they decide I should leave the country, should my family stay here?”

Bashir’s lawyer said only men are currently receiving such notices – and not just from Syria but Afghanistan, another country whose civil war is deemed to have ended, with the Taliban’s sweeping victory in August 2021.

But neither Syria nor Afghanistan is necessarily safe to return to, said the lawyer, Angeliki Theodoropoulou.

“We believe this has to do with the European Union’s stance towards Syria and Afghanistan, and with the fact that there are quite a few voluntary returns, which encourages authorities to say, ‘Let’s see if these people can return’,” Theodoropoulou told Al Jazeera.

She said the entire regime of international protection was being tightened for these two nationalities. “We’re also seeing asylum being given in very few cases, and a lot of rejections,” she said.

“We don’t understand on what criteria they decided Syria is safe,” Bashir said.

Earlier this year, renewed clashes erupted between the Syrian government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), while Israel has continued attacks on the country sporadically.

Bilal said he feels uncomfortable about the idea of living in Syria for cultural and political reasons, having spent 15 years away.

“Many of the refugees here are like me,” he said.

Jihad, who requested to withhold his surname, has similar concerns but for the opposite reason. He has lived in Greece legally since 2001 and runs a small clothes shop. When the regime of Bashar al-Assad fell, the rest of his family also fled, because he and his family were Assad supporters.

He fears that he would be mistreated in Syria over his views.

“If they just look at my Facebook page or look at things I wrote in the past, they will send me to jail for sure,” Jihad said. “I’m afraid even to go to the embassy. I have never held a gun, I have never killed anyone, I just have an opinion.”

Both men have clean criminal records, pay taxes and social security contributions, and have nurtured families in Greece. Both say they would flee to another country rather than return to Syria. So why is Greece considering their eviction?

Greece’s turn to exclusion

Greek Migration Minister Thanos Plevris announced in February that he had ordered a reopening of any asylum cases that could be revoked. As a temporary status, it can be.

Last year, Greece revoked the asylum of almost 200 people, compared with 400 in the previous decade. Dozens more cases are under review this year. And there appears to be a religious element to the policy.

Greece suspended asylum applications for mainly Muslim asylum seekers arriving from Libya for three months last year. Most of the people whose asylum is being revoked are from majority-Muslim countries.

At a recent parliamentary committee hearing, Plevris stated clearly that Greece prefers non-Muslim migrant workers.

“There are countries with which we don’t have common values, and that’s mainly because of religion, let’s be clear, it’s because of hardcore Islam,” Plevris said. “So, you have to pick countries that are religiously neutral or Christian. We’re talking to Georgia, the Philippines, Armenia, India.”

Greece has been tightening its migration policy in other ways as well.

In September 2025, it adopted what Plevris described as “the strictest returns policy in the whole EU”, empowering the government to imprison people who refuse to be deported. Rejected asylum applicants can be fitted with ankle monitors and given just two weeks to remove themselves voluntarily. If they don’t, they face a 5,000-euro fine ($5,870) and two to five years’ confinement in closed camps.

In February, the governing conservative New Democracy party passed a law stipulating that if any aid worker is charged with helping to smuggle asylum seekers into Greece, their entire aid organisation can be delisted from the ministry’s registry. That means they could lose their funding and access to refugee camps, and could shut down.

The broader context

Europe is undergoing a transition as it prepares to put into force an Asylum and Migration Pact next month. The pact demands a hard-border policy and a returns policy for rejected asylum seekers, both of which each member state must manage itself.

“We’re at a pivotal point in time. We’re about to see the implementation of the European pact. This will fundamentally change the way that migration works,” Kristin Fabbe, chair in Business and Comparative Politics at the European University Institute, recently told a Delphi Economic Forum event in Athens.

The largest bottleneck, she said, “is that Europe has not yet figured out how to do returns at scale … in order to reform asylum and reform migration, you have to execute returns at scale, and the data show that that has been impossible”.

Greece, an EU front-line state, already has 938,000 legally resident migrants in a population of 10.3 million, a relatively high number. Of these, more than 137,000 are recipients of asylum or international protection.

As the Middle East and North Africa region remains unstable, the government is worried about the potential scale of future refugee flows.

More than a million asylum seekers crossed the Greek borders in 2015. In the years that followed, certain EU members took on thousands of asylum cases from Greece and Italy in a show of solidarity, and tens of thousands more asylum recipients in Greece moved to other EU states. Those states have agreed to keep them, but that would not necessarily happen again under the pact.

Observers say this explains Greece’s hardline attitude.

Commenting on the political mood in Europe, Fabbe said, “The legality, the sanctity of the [returns] solutions is being challenged, but I think we’re going to see the proliferation of those solutions and new institutional mechanisms.”

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill has imposed a curfew and deployed state police outside Newark’s Delaney Hall immigration detention centre after nights of clashes between protesters and ICE agents.

Ras Baraka, the mayor of Newark in New Jersey, has imposed a curfew on the area surrounding Delaney Hall, the immigration detention centre that has become a flashpoint in the debate over United States President Donald Trump’s mass deportation drive.

The Sunday morning announcement came amid a flare-up in tensions outside the detention centre, which is run by the private contractor GEO Group, as part of a 15-year deal with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“Due to the escalating situation at Delaney Hall and the increasing need for police intervention, immediate action is required to protect public safety,” Baraka wrote in a statement.

“Multiple individuals have already been arrested and found in possession of weapons, underscoring the seriousness of the threat.”

As part of the curfew, movement will be restricted within half a mile (0.8km) of the detention centre between the hours of 9pm and 6am US Eastern time (1:00 to 10:00 GMT).

A nearby road, Doremus Avenue, will also be closed to pedestrians and vehicles that cannot verify their need to be in the area.

Since the reopening of Delaney Hall as an immigration detention facility last year, it has been the site of confrontations between law enforcement and protesters, including Mayor Baraka himself.

The month of May has seen more than a week of daily protests outside Delaney Hall, after lawyers for the detainees at Delaney Hall announced a hunger strike was unfolding inside.

Detainees have denounced the living conditions to human rights groups, reporting expired food, a lack of medical care and abuse at the hands of authorities.

The Trump administration has justified its mass deportation campaign as an effort to rid the US of “the worst of the worst”, framing undocumented immigrants as a criminal threat.

But critics point out that many of those detained have no criminal record, and some who do have only been cited for minor offences.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data-tracking service from Syracuse University, found that, as of April, roughly 71 percent of those in ICE detention had no criminal conviction.

To show solidarity with the hunger strike, protesters have been gathering outside Delaney Hall, locking arms to form human chains and creating barricades to prevent access.

But that has led to tense confrontations with law enforcement, who have used batons and pepper spray to try to clear roads to the facility.

Governor Mikie Sherrill called for the establishment of designated protest zones, to mitigate the likelihood of conflict between officers and demonstrators.

But clashes have continued. Overnight on Wednesday, six protesters were arrested.

Politicians themselves have encountered tense interactions at Delaney Hall.

A year ago, one protest resulted in trespassing charges against Mayor Baraka and assault charges against US Representative LaMonica McIver, after a disagreement over which officials could enter the facility for an inspection.

While the charges against Baraka were dropped, McIver continues to face legal proceedings. She has denied the charges and called the prosecution politically motivated.

“One year ago, the Trump administration threw baseless charges against me for conducting oversight to protect immigrants at Delaney Hall,” McIver wrote on social media on Saturday.

“Have they tried to silence me? Yes. Have the stakes risen? Yes. Am I backing down from speaking up for you? Never.”

This past week, Governor Sherrill was also denied access to the facility. She has since issued a statement calling for Delaney Hall to be shut down.

At a news conference on Saturday, she blamed “national extremist groups” for arriving from out of state and escalating tensions. She added that the current precautions were designed to protect the safety of peaceful protesters.

“I urge those protesting outside of Delaney Hall to bring the temperature down, so we can focus on the detainees and their families,” Sherrill said.

She suggested that the actions of state and local officials would help head off any expanded ICE operations in New Jersey.

“I will not give ICE a pretext to expand operations at Delaney Hall or across our state. I will not put lives at risk,” she said. “I’m grateful to the vast majority of protesters who have assembled peacefully and raised their voices about Delaney Hall’s conditions.”

The charges stem from the January 14 shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent charged with shooting a Venezuelan man during a controversial immigration raid in Minnesota has been arrested in Texas, according to United States authorities.

Agent Christian Castro, 52, was taken into custody on Friday after investigators from Minnesota tracked him down in the southern state, where he was arrested with assistance from the Texas Rangers and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) inspector general’s office. He faces four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.

The charges stem from the non-fatal shooting on January 14 of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale immigration enforcement campaign that drew widespread criticism for its aggressive tactics.

Prosecutors allege Castro fired through the front door of a residence, striking Sosa-Celis in the leg.

“Mr Castro was charged earlier this month with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime for an incident on January 14, 2026, when he discharged his weapon through the front door of a home knowing there were people who had just run inside,” the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office said in a statement.

“The bullet travelled through the door and struck one victim in the leg before making its final impact in the wall of a child’s room.”

Minnesota officials welcomed Castro’s arrest, saying federal agents should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else.

“In Minnesota, we believe in equal justice under the law. That means nobody is above the law, including agents of the federal government,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. “I am pleased to hear Christian Castro has been taken into custody and will stand trial for the crimes he allegedly committed in Minnesota.”

Operation Metro Surge faces increasing legal scrutiny

The case became a flashpoint after federal authorities initially claimed Sosa-Celis and another man had assaulted ICE officers.

Those allegations later unravelled when video and other evidence emerged that contradicted agents’ accounts, prompting prosecutors to drop charges against Sosa-Celis and his housemate, Alfredo Aljorna.

The DHS later acknowledged that officers involved in the incident had provided false information about the shooting.

The outgoing director of ICE, Todd Lyons, also indicated a federal investigation was under way. “Lying under oath is a serious federal offense,” he said.

But through a spokesperson, ICE rejected Minnesota’s effort to prosecute the agent involved, calling the case “unlawful” and “a political stunt”.

Castro is the second federal officer charged this year in connection with Operation Metro Surge, an unusual step that reflects growing scrutiny of federal agents’ conduct during the immigration crackdown.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty is also pursuing investigations into other incidents linked to the operation.

Operation Metro Surge began in Minnesota in December 2025. By the time Sosa-Celis was shot on January 14, hundreds of federal agents had been deployed across the Minneapolis-St Paul area in what officials described as the largest DHS operation in US history.

The crackdown ultimately prompted intense controversy, particularly after the fatal shootings of two US citizens: Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24.

Against that backdrop, the investigation into the Sosa-Celis shooting further intensified scrutiny of federal agents’ tactics and conduct during the operation.

Foreign workers in South Africa are yet again facing violence and protests by anti-immigrant groups. They accuse them of residing and working in the country illegally and are demanding that they leave by June 30.

South Africa has seen recurrent waves of anti-immigrant violence in the past decade – often directed at other African nationals.

Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the country has become a destination for thousands of workers from neighbouring countries. But many South Africans say the government is not upholding its immigration laws.

So, does South Africa still need foreign workers?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

William Gumede – Associate professor, School of Governance at the University of the Witwatersrand

Lindiwe Zulu – Member of the ANC Committee on International Relations and a former South African minister of social development

Ashraf Essop – Immigration lawyer

The first flight carrying around 300 Ghanaians evacuated from South Africa following anti-immigrant tensions and reported attacks on foreign nationals has arrived in Accra. Authorities welcomed returnees with reintegration support and transport assistance.

Judge says the human smuggling probe was reopened after the Salvadoran national filed his lawsuit against his deportation.

A United States judge has dismissed an indictment against Kilmar Abrego Garcia after finding that he would not have been prosecuted if he had not challenged his deportation.

On Friday, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw said the Department of Justice only reopened its human smuggling probe stemming from a 2022 traffic stop after Salvadoran national Abrego Garcia filed his lawsuit.

“The court does not reach its conclusion lightly,” Crenshaw wrote.

“The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.”

Last year, Abrego Garcia became a symbol for President Donald Trump’s drive to clamp down on illegal migration and was sent to a mega prison in El Salvador despite a prior court banning him from being returned there due to a risk of persecution.

While the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US in June of the same year, his return came only after prosecutors had secured a criminal indictment charging him with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the claim and argued that he was being prosecuted in retaliation for suing the government to be returned to the US from El Salvador.

In the ruling to dismiss the indictment, Crenshaw wrote that the timing of the charges was central to the “presumption of vindictiveness”.

With Homeland Security already aware of the traffic stop two years ago and having closed the case against Abrego Garcia when it deported him, the case was only reopened once the US Supreme Court had ruled that he be returned from El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia’s deportation had violated a 2019 immigration court order that granted him protection against being returned to his home country after a judge found that he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

Despite his return to the US and his family, Trump officials have said that Abrego Garcia cannot remain in the country and have pledged to deport him again to a third country, a country where the person does not have any ties.

The ONS says net migration fell to 171,000 in the ⁠12 months to the end of December from 331,000 a year earlier.

Long-term net migration to the United Kingdom nearly halved ⁠in 2025, falling to levels last seen before the post-Brexit immigration system was introduced, as tougher government measures enacted in recent years restricted arrivals.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said on Thursday that net migration fell to 171,000 in the ⁠12 months to the end of December from 331,000 a year earlier, extending a sharp decline from a record peak of 944,000 in 2023.

Immigration – both legal and illegal – has dominated political debate in the for more than a decade, with successive governments imposing stricter visa rules and higher salary thresholds. The current government has pledged to go further.

The British Future think tank ‌said the country was “experiencing one of the sharpest falls in net migration on record”, but that most people believed the opposite, according to its research.

Interior Minister Shabana Mahmood welcomed the progress from tighter policies, but said that there was still work to do.

“We will always welcome those who contribute to this country and wish to build a better life here. But we must restore order and control to our borders,” she said, adding that the government’s new skills-based migration would reward contribution and end reliance on “cheap overseas workers”.

On Saturday, far-right activist Tommy Robinson drew tens of thousands of people in London to attend his “unite the kingdom” march. Islamophobic and ethnonationalist hate flyers were reportedly distributed to the crowds. “In a country saturated with degenerates, grifters and imported political enemies … We are a brotherhood of White Europeans who share the same values,” read one leaflet.

Meanwhile, employers and economists ⁠have raised concerns about labour shortages, particularly in sectors such as care and hospitality.

The ONS said long-term net migration was ⁠now close to its level before the new immigration system was introduced at the start of 2021, when the UK transitioned out of European Union membership, and when COVID restrictions ⁠were still in place.

The drop reflects policy changes implemented from 2024, ⁠when the previous Conservative government banned most international students from bringing dependents and raised salary thresholds for skilled worker visas.

The current Labour government has tightened policies further as it seeks to counter Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK party, which campaigns on an anti-migration platform and holds a double-digit lead in opinion ‌polls.

To that end, the government last year moved to end overseas recruitment of care workers, the single biggest driver of work migration in recent years, and raised the salary threshold for skilled worker visas further. It has since announced ‌more ‌sweeping reforms, including plans to speed up deportations of those arriving illegally and double the qualifying period for some workers to obtain settled status to 10 years, as well as making refugee status temporary.

As governments gather in New York for the second International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) to assess progress on global migration commitments, a central question looms: is the Global Compact for Migration improving conditions for people on the move?

The answer is yes.

Adopted in 2018, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is the first international agreement aimed at making migration safer and more humane through cooperation. For the Middle East and North Africa, the International Organization for Migration’s Global Overview of Migration Routes (2025), which tracks migration patterns, risks and deaths along major routes worldwide, offers a mixed picture. Some routes are shifting, but the risks people face remain severe, and in some cases are worsening.

Across the Mediterranean, arrival numbers alone can be misleading. In 2025, just more than 66,500 people reached Italy and Malta via the Central Mediterranean Route, almost identical to the year before. Arrivals to Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria along the Eastern Mediterranean Route fell by about 30 percent, while the Western Mediterranean Route saw a modest rise. The Western African Atlantic Route to the Canary Islands recorded a dramatic 62 percent drop.

Taken in isolation, these figures might suggest reduced pressure on Europe’s borders. But lower arrivals do not automatically mean safer journeys. On the Eastern Mediterranean Route, deaths and disappearances nearly doubled in a single year. On the Western African Atlantic Route, deaths barely declined despite the steep drop in arrivals – meaning the probability of dying at sea increased. And on the Central Mediterranean Route, more than 1,300 people are known to have died in 2025, keeping it among the world’s deadliest migration corridors.

These trends reflect a broader reality: When border controls tighten or routes shift, journeys often become longer, more fragmented and more dangerous. People continue to move, but with fewer options, many are pushed towards irregular and high‑risk pathways.

Sudan illustrates how crises can reshape mobility across an entire region. Three years after the conflict erupted in April 2023, Sudan has become the world’s largest displacement crisis. At the peak, the number of internally displaced people more than tripled, reaching more than 11.5 million. Nearly 4 million people have returned home – often to damaged or partially destroyed housing – but almost 9 million remain displaced. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that more Sudanese nationals are appearing along both Eastern and Central Mediterranean routes. For many, these journeys are not a first choice but a last resort, when options in Sudan and neighbouring countries are constrained.

The MENA region is also deeply connected to global mobility patterns. Movements from Asia and the Pacific to Europe increased significantly in 2025, with nearly one in three irregular arrivals originating from that region. Many of these journeys intersect with North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. A visa policy change in one country, a conflict flare‑up in another, or a new enforcement measure along a corridor can reshape risks across thousands of kilometres.

Meanwhile, the underlying pressures driving mobility in and around MENA are not easing. The region has one of the world’s youngest populations, with youth unemployment often exceeding 20 percent. Climate‑related shocks – droughts, floods, heatwaves – are increasingly interacting with conflict and economic stress. These factors rarely operate in isolation; they compound one another, shaping both internal displacement and cross‑border movement.
What does this mean for policy? Several priorities stand out.

First, search and rescue capacities must adapt to evolving realities. Stabilising or declining arrival numbers should never be mistaken for reduced risk. The sharp rise in deaths on some routes underscores the need for stronger cooperation on distress response, better data on deaths and disappearances, and sustained support for front-line communities. Saving lives at sea and on land is a humanitarian, legal and moral imperative.

Second, safe and regular pathways must be expanded. When regular options are limited, people facing violence, economic hardship or family separation are more likely to turn to irregular routes. Well‑designed labour mobility schemes, family reunification channels and humanitarian pathways can reduce reliance on dangerous journeys while supporting development in both origin and destination countries.

Third, better and shared data are essential. The Global Overview and Sudan displacement figures show the value of combining arrival statistics, intention surveys and information on deaths and missing people. Continued investment in national data systems can help governments anticipate pressures and design more effective policies.

Finally, intensified cooperation is required. In New York this week 130 states from all over the world are engaging in driving forward implementation of the Global Compact, recognising that migration is a phenomenon best governed through principled and constructive partnership.

This IMRF is about collaboration, and clarity about what we will do next. Expand safe and regular pathways. Strengthen fair recruitment and worker protection. Invest in data and protection systems that save lives. And cooperate across borders to take down criminal networks. If we get this right, fewer people will suffer, fewer lives will be lost – and more people, and societies, will thrive. That is the opportunity before us – here, and now. Let us seize it – together.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

Lawyers say El Gamal family detained by Trump administration hours after returning home from 10-month detention.

A United States federal court has blocked the administration of United States President Donald Trump from deporting a woman and her five children following their release from immigration detention.

Hayam El Gamal and her five children, ranging in age from five to 18 years old, had been held for 10 months prior to their release earlier this week following a judge’s order. They had been held in detention for the longest of any known family during Trump’s second term in office,

But just days after returning to their home in Colorado, immigration authorities again detained the family on Saturday and sought to swiftly deport them, according to their lawyer.

“The Trump administration has kidnapped the El Gamal family in violation of a federal court order from the Western District of Texas, which ordered them Thursday not to detain or remove the family from the United States,” a statement from the family lawyers, shared by lawyer Eric Lee, said.

“The attempt to remove the El Gamal family is in violation of a federal court order and must be halted immediately,” it adds.

Lee said shortly after that US District Judge Fred Biery, who ordered the family’s initial release on Thursday, had granted an emergency order on Saturday barring their removal.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The Trump administration has at times flouted court orders barring it from deporting people from the US, pushing a hardline approach that critics say has defied legal constraints.

That has come amid a wider campaign to restrict immigration, legal and illegal, particularly from non-Western countries.

Hayam El Gamal and her children were detained by the Trump administration after her former husband, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, attacked a group of people in Boulder, Colorado, as they gathered in support of Israeli captives held by the Palestinian armed group Hamas in June 2025.

An 82-year-old woman later died from injuries sustained during the incident.

Soliman’s family condemned the attack and denied any knowledge that it was going to take place, with NBC News reporting that El Gamal divorced her husband soon after his arrest.

An FBI agent also testified under oath that there was no evidence that the family, who have not been charged with any crimes, was aware of the father’s plan.

Their nearly yearlong detention by the Trump administration has been described by the family’s lawyers and several lawmakers as an illegal and cruel effort to punish the family for an act they did not commit.

Following Soliman’s arrest, the White House, in a post on X, said it would seek to immediately expel the family, whose lawyers have said are in the process of applying for asylum after coming to the US on tourist visas from Egypt.

“Six One-Way Tickets for Mohamed’s Wife and Five Kids. Final Boarding Call Coming Soon,” the White House post said.

The family has experienced deteriorating health and been denied proper medical care while in detention, according to their lawyers. Earlier in April, El Gamal was hospitalised due to a medical emergency related to an untreated growth on her chest, they said.

Immigration rights groups have noted that it is typically illegal to detain children for extended periods of time.

In a statement earlier this week, US Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, said the Trump administration’s motives would be clear if they sought to re-detain the family despite the judge’s order to release them.

“If, despite the judge’s recommendation, the Department of Homeland Security still objects to the release of an innocent woman and her five children, we know exactly why that is the case,” Durbin said.

“It is not because they present any danger to the community or a flight risk. It is because they are immigrants – Arab Muslim immigrants at that.”

Judge had previously blocked move to end temporary legal status for those who entered US via Biden-era application.

The administration of President Donald Trump plans to again end the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of people who applied for asylum in the United States via the CBP One app.

The plan was detailed in a court filing in Boston, Massachusetts, and comes after a judge ruled that Trump’s earlier effort to terminate the legal status of those individuals was unlawful.

Under US President Joe Biden, individuals who registered for an appointment with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) were preliminarily vetted and granted temporary legal status in the US as their asylum cases were adjudicated.

About 900,000 people were granted so-called humanitarian parole under the programme.

But in April of last year, just months after Trump took office for a second term, many of those individuals received emails saying their status had been terminated.

The message told its recipients it was “time for you to leave the United States”.

Federal Judge Allison Burroughs subsequently ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not follow the proper procedures in terminating the legal status immigration status of CBP One users.

The US Department of Justice, in the new filings, told Burroughs that the Trump administration was complying with ⁠her order.

However, the department said the administration would begin issuing new parole termination notices, pursuant to a Tuesday memo from CBP’s head, Rodney Scott.

The memo is not public, but according to the Justice Department, Scott provided ‌an explanation for why, in his opinion, “parole is no longer appropriate for those aliens”.

Lawyers for Democracy Forward and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, which represent the individuals whose status faces termination, urged Burroughs in a subsequent filing to prevent what they called a “deliberate attempt to evade compliance with the court’s order”.

The next hearing was set for May 6.

During his second term, Trump has pursued a hardline immigration policy that has included staunching nearly all asylum claims at the southern border.

Shortly after taking office, Trump’s officials also dissolved the CBP One app and relaunched it as CBP Home, a tool for self-deportation.

His administration has claimed there was an “invasion” at the border that constituted a “national emergency”, thereby allowing Trump to bypass legal requirements to allow individuals seeking asylum into the country.

Asylum, however, is a right enshrined both in domestic and international law, to protect people fleeing persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Separately, on Friday, a federal appeals court ruled against the Trump administration’s ban on asylum at the southern US border, potentially clearing the way for applications to once again be processed.

The administration is expected to appeal the decision.

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

India’s Foreign Ministry says comments by US radio host Michael Savage, circulated by Trump, are ‘uninformed’.

Comments shared by United States President Donald Trump referring to India as a “hellhole” were “in poor taste” and at odds with the countries’ relationship, an Indian official has said.

Trump did not make the remark himself, but reposted it without comment on his Truth Social account on Thursday. The statement came from conservative radio host Michael Savage.

Criticising US birthright citizenship – which Trump has sought to restrict – Savage said, “A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet.”

Reacting late on Thursday, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said the remark was “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste”.

The comments “certainly do not ⁠reflect the reality of the India-US relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests”, Jaiswal added.

The US Embassy in New Delhi said, “The president has said ‘India is a great country with a very good friend of mine at the top’.”

China’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately comment on the matter.

‘Hurts every Indian’

India’s main opposition Congress party called the “hellhole” remark “extremely insulting and anti-India. It hurts every Indian”.

“Prime Minister ⁠Narendra Modi should take up this matter with the US President ⁠and register a strong objection,” the party said on X.

Indian government data shows nearly 5.5 million people of Indian origin live in the US. Indian Americans and Chinese Americans are the biggest groups of Asian origin in the US.

Savage’s comment, shared by Trump, continued: “There’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, ‌which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors.”

Trump and Modi enjoyed ‌warm ties during Trump’s first term, but relations cooled after India was hit last year with some of the highest US tariffs, many of which were rolled back this year.

India and the US are ‌now ‌working on a trade deal aimed at preventing any renewed tariff increases and boosting sales to each other.

Trump has repeatedly used insulting language to refer to foreign nations and immigrant communities, including recently calling Somali immigrants “garbage”.

In 2018, Trump made global headlines for referring to El Salvador, Haiti and African nations as “s**thole countries”.

Rights advocates have accused the Trump administration of using third-country deportations to intimidate asylum seekers and migrants.

Fifteen South American migrants and asylum seekers recently deported from the United States to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) say they are facing pressure to return to their countries of origin, despite concerns for their safety.

Women from Colombia, Peru and Ecuador told the Reuters news agency that, since being deported to the Central African nation last week, they have been given no credible options other than going back to their home countries.

“We feel pressured to agree to go back to our country, regardless of the risks,” a 29-year-old Colombian woman, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisals, told Reuters.

The group arrived in the DRC last week as part of a controversial third-country agreement with the administration of US President Donald Trump.

Since returning to the presidency for a second term, Trump has implemented hardline measures to restrict immigration to the US and expel immigrants already in the country, some of whom have legal status.

Among the 15 South Americans who were deported to the DRC, some say they had sought asylum — a legal immigration process — in the US after fleeing persecution in their home countries.

The 29-year-old woman, for example, wrote in her asylum application in January 2024 that she left Colombia after being kidnapped and tortured by an armed group, as well as suffering abuse at the hands of her ex-husband, who was a police officer.

A US immigration judge ruled in May 2025 that she was more likely than not to be tortured if she was sent home, according to court records reviewed by Reuters.

The AFP news agency also reported that a 30-year-old Colombian woman named Gabriela only learned that she was being sent to the DRC a day before last week’s flight. During a 27-hour trip, the hands and feet of the deportees were shackled.

“I didn’t want to go to Congo,” she told AFP. “I’m scared; I don’t know the language.”

Immigration advocates have said that third-country deportations are an effort to intimidate migrants and asylum seekers into agreeing to leave the US.

Such removals involve sending immigrants to places with which they have no familiarity. Many, including the DRC, are known for human rights concerns or are sites of active conflict.

“The goal is clear: Put people in a place so unfamiliar that they give up and agree to return home, despite the immense risk they face there,” said Alma David, a US-based lawyer representing one of the asylum seekers in the DRC.