Stranded in Transit: The Plight of Deported Asylum Seekers in Panama

The following briefing looks at Panama's migration agreement with the US, delves into migrants' perspectives and examines the international implications of this deportation strategy. This piece was written by Natasha Chavez and edited by Ruyi Liu.

---

A new frontier in migration control

In February 2025, the United States deported 300 asylum seekers from countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Iran and more to Panama as part of an intensified strategy to deter irregular migration, which includes closing legal pathways to the U.S. at the southern border, pausing refugee resettlement programs, and cutting funding to organisations that assist deported migrants. The decision represents a significant shift in global migration policy, in which some Latin American countries have agreed to become "bridge states, meaning an intermediary and not a destination for U.S. deportees.

Panama was expected to hold migrants in temporary custody at a hotel in Panama City before sending them back to their countries of origin, with the U.S. paying for these repatriations through U.N. immigration agencies. While this policy aimed to expedite removals and reduce the backlog of the U.S. asylum system, it left many stranded in an unknown country. Those unwilling to being repatriated for fear of persecution were moved to a guarded camp in the Darien region. But after a lawsuit and protests by human rights organisations, they were dropped off in the capital with 30 days to figure out where they will go next. Although they are now “free”, the only other option is to extend their stay for another 90 days.

Panama’s agreement to receive deported migrants is clearly the result of strategic negotiations between the Trump administration and the Panamanian government. Officials in Washington have described the plan as a "regional solution" to migration challenges, but lawyers and researchers argue that it effectively turns Panama into a holding zone for asylum seekers with little to no due process. For Panama, the agreement comes with significant financial and logistical pressures. While the U.S. has promised financial support for housing and processing deportees, the Panamanian government has limited infrastructure to accommodate large numbers of asylum seekers, most of whom arrived with little resources and no clear legal status.

The use of third countries as deportation sites is not new, but its scale under the current Trump administration represents an unprecedented strategic shift. Previously, the U.S. had attempted similar arrangements with Mexico and Central American nations through policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) which relied on regional cooperation to manage asylum seekers near the U.S. border. However, the current approach shows a greater effort to outsource both the legal responsibility and the “diplomatic labour” to transit nations. By pressuring countries like Panama and Costa Rica to facilitate repatriation logistics for non-Latin American nationals, the U.S. is not merely displacing asylum processing but also externalising the lengthy negotiations required for bilateral return agreements with countries of origin. This redistribution of diplomatic work reflects a greater pattern of asymmetrical burden-sharing, in which the U.S. leverages its geopolitical power to push downstream migration governance onto smaller states.  

Life in limbo: migrants' perspective

For the asylum seekers caught in this deportation system, Panama has become a place of desperate uncertainty. After going through some of the world’s most dangerous migration routes, many have unexpectedly ended up in an unintended destination. Many deported asylum seekers have already navigated bureaucratic obstacles, dealt with hostile immigration systems, and lived under the constant fear of violence. Some have endured months, even years of waiting for asylum hearings only to be abruptly sent to a country where they face new difficulties.

An Afghan asylum seeker revealed the experience many others are facing upon their arrival in Panama: “We were told we would be taken to safety, but instead, we were left in a place where we have no rights. There is no way to appeal, no one to listen.” This account shows not only the growing despair among deportees but also a broader failure to uphold basic human security principles.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) defines human security as freedom from fear and want, including access to shelter, health and legal protection. Yet, these deportees were being denied all three. Reports from detention centres in Panama also reveal overcrowded conditions and a failure to meet international protection standards since basic sanitation and medical care is in short supply. Detainees reported that their phones were confiscated, which limited communication with legal counsel and family members. Legal representatives expressed concerns over the lack of access to their clients or clear information regarding their legal status and potential avenues for asylum. A Panamanian lawyer representing 24 migrants stated that her clients were living in isolation and anxiety since many of them are unaware of their rights, have language barriers and are constantly concerned of being repatriated. Meanwhile, Panamanian authorities have denied mistreatment allegations, and consistently blocked press access and scheduled visits.

Rather than providing meaningful protection, the agreement between the U.S. and Panama appears to reproduce carceral conditions in a country ill-equipped for such responsibility. This raises critical questions about the role of these "regional solutions" in displacing—not solving—the challenges of asylum governance. Far from easing the burden on U.S. infrastructure, the policy may instead be generating new humanitarian crises in countries already facing resource constraints.

The situation becomes more difficult considering the personal risks these migrants face if they are sent back to their home countries. For many deportees, returning home is not an option due to the real risk of persecution or violence. However, with legal pathways blocked and international protections weakened, they face a dangerous cycle of displacement, re-migration and renewed precarity. Some have attempted to head north again, while others appeal to international organisations and local NGOs, whose capacity remains limited. Therefore, it becomes clear that shifting the responsibility onto countries with limited infrastructure does not merely externalise the U.S.’s migration burden but contributes to the erosion of international protection systems.

International implications

US’s strategy of using Panama as a deportation hub has alarmed the international community, particularly due to the violation of non-refoulement, the corner stone of international refugee law and human rights law. This principle prohibits states from removing individuals when there are substantial grounds to believe that they would be at risk upon return. The Senior Director for Global Humanitarian Protection exposed that “instead of hearing asylum seekers’ arguments, the Trump administration handcuffed them and flew them to Panama where they were kept in a jungle detention camp”. By deporting asylum seekers to a third country with limited protection infrastructure and without due process, the U.S. not only risks violating this legal obligation, but also weakens the integrity of the international asylum regime it has helped to build. This move reflects a broader shift in the U.S.’s role as a norm-shaper in global refugee protection. It also creates a dangerous precedent: powerful countries can externalise their protection duties without accountability. Several human rights organisations argue that these third-country deportations constitute a deliberate attempt to evade refugee law, exploiting legal grey zones to avoid due process.

On a geopolitical level, Panama is also placed in a very difficult position. While maintaining cooperation with the U.S. offers political and financial benefits, the country is now part of a broader trend in which Central American nations are being drawn into migration containment strategies. Panama’s continued participation in this system could damage its international reputation, especially among human rights advocates and neighbouring countries. Panama's reliance on U.S. aid to handle the growing crisis may eventually fuel domestic resentment, as local citizens witness the country’s migration policies being dictated by a foreign power. And given the political situation in Panama, where migration has often been treated as a security issue rather than a humanitarian one, there is growing concern that the government may prioritise short-term aid over long-term solutions, complicating the migrant crisis.

Furthermore, the use of Panama as a “stopover” for deported migrants reflects a regional pattern.  Other Central American countries, such as Costa Rica and El Salvador, have faced similar pressure from the U.S. to sign agreements requiring them to hold Trump’s deportees in their detention facilities. Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves has acknowledged this imbalance, referring to his country’s role as helping its “economically powerful brother from the north”, after promising to receive 200 migrants for no more than 30 days before sending them to their countries of origin. Meanwhile, Panama has also faced threats from Trump, who has suggested taking control over the Panama Canal. Both deals have raised concerns that these nations were coerced into compliance, potentially under the threat of economic penalties like tariffs. Nonetheless, the U.S. continues to expand its network of deportation routes across Latin America with Guatemala pledging a 40% increase in deportation flights, and Honduras receiving 177 Venezuelan migrants from the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, who were then flown to Caracas. This shift risks creating a network of containment zones across Central America, where countries are being asked to bear the burden of U.S. migration policy.

Finally, the long-term effects of this policy on international organisations remain uncertain. The United Nations and its partner agencies, which provide humanitarian aid and legal protection to migrants, may find themselves sidelined as countries like Panama taking more responsibility for migration management. This change could undermine decades of progress in refugee rights and protections. As more countries follow Panama’s lead, it becomes increasingly unclear how international bodies will enforce global standards on asylum protection. This evolving situation threatens to create a more fragmented, less coordinated approach to global migration, one where rights protections for vulnerable people are diminished in favour of short-term political goals.

The road ahead

The future of this deportation strategy remains uncertain. For the U.S., success depends on its effectiveness in deterring migrants from attempting to reach American territory. However, history suggests that restrictive immigration policies often lead to more desperate and dangerous migration routes, rather than stopping movement altogether. From a broader perspective, the policy raises urgent questions about the future of global asylum systems. If major powers like the U.S. can outsource asylum processing to third countries without guaranteeing any protections, what precedent does this set for other nations? Asylum protections risk becoming increasingly fragmented, leaving vulnerable populations with fewer and fewer options.

The plight of deported asylum seekers in Panama is an important reminder of the human cost of migration policies that prioritise enforcement over protection. While the U.S. government justifies its actions essential for security, the reality tells a different story: stranded migrants, overwhelmed transit countries, and a growing humanitarian crisis. If no action is taken to address these issues, Panama may become just one of many nations forced to serve as an offshore processing hub for wealthier countries unwilling to meet their international obligations. For those caught in this system, the road to safety remains as dangerous as ever.