Yaoundé, Cameroon — In a bold legal maneuver, 36 African migrants deported from the United States to Cameroon under a controversial U.S. migration scheme have filed a groundbreaking lawsuit in Cameroon’s administrative court, demanding the suspension of the bilateral agreement and legal residency rights. Their lawyer, Fru Awah, revealed Wednesday that the migrants—originally protected from deportation by U.S. immigration courts—now face imminent repatriation to countries where they risk persecution, torture, or death.
The lawsuit, filed in the Cameroonian capital Yaoundé, targets the U.S.-Cameroon migration agreement, which facilitates the transfer of individuals deemed inadmissible in the U.S. to third countries. The plaintiffs argue that Cameroon’s participation in this arrangement violates its constitutional, statutory, and international obligations, including protections under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
A Controversial U.S. Policy Under Scrutiny
The migrants—hailing from nations including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Angola, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe, and Morocco—were initially shielded from deportation by U.S. courts due to credible fears of harm in their home countries. However, under the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” and third-country deportation policies, they were instead sent to Cameroon between January and May 2024.
Upon arrival, the migrants were placed in a Cameroonian detention center managed by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), where they have been denied identity documents, legal status, and freedom of movement, according to Awah. The lawsuit seeks:
– Immediate suspension of the U.S.-Cameroon migration agreement pending legal review.
– Clarification of the migrants’ legal status under Cameroonian law.
– Prevention of onward deportation to countries where they face severe human rights violations.
“Cameroon cannot be reduced to a mere transit point for the United States,” Awah stated in a statement to AFP. “We are demanding that the court affirm that no administrative arrangement—no matter how negotiated—can override Cameroon’s binding legal and humanitarian obligations.”
A Pattern of Third-Country Deportations
Cameroon is not alone in hosting deported migrants under U.S. pressure. Other African nations, including the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda, South Sudan, Eswatini, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone, have also entered similar agreements. The U.S. government, particularly under former President Donald Trump, has offered financial incentives—millions in aid—and threatened visa restrictions to coerce African governments into accepting deported individuals, regardless of their asylum claims.
An AFP investigation uncovered that the U.S. has leveraged diplomatic and economic leverage to push these deals, often bypassing due process for migrants. Critics argue that such arrangements undermine international refugee protections and exploit vulnerable populations.
Humanitarian Crisis in Limbo
Since their arrival, the 36 migrants have lived in legal limbo, confined to a facility where they lack access to basic rights. Their situation mirrors broader concerns about human trafficking risks and exploitation in transit countries, where migrants are often stripped of documentation and subjected to arbitrary detention.
“These individuals were not criminals—they were fleeing violence, persecution, and instability,” human rights advocates argue. “Forcing them into a country where they have no legal rights and no path to safety is not just unethical—it is illegal under international law.”
Global Backlash and Legal Precedents
The case has drawn international attention, with refugee advocates calling for an immediate halt to third-country deportations. Legal experts suggest that Cameroon’s courts may set a precedent for other African nations facing similar pressures from the U.S. or other Western governments.
If the lawsuit succeeds, it could challenge the legality of migration agreements that prioritize political expediency over human rights. For now, the 36 migrants remain in limbo, their futures hanging on the outcome of a legal battle that could redefine asylum and deportation policies across Africa and beyond.
