Why Afghan Allies Are Being Deported to Countries With No Ties
For years, the United States promised safety to Afghans who worked alongside its soldiers and interpreters. Two recent cases show how that promise can end with a deportation flight to a country the person has never visited.
A Flight to the Central African Republic
On August 30, 2025, dozens of people were flown to the Central African Republic. Hindustan Times reported that the flight carried 12 Afghans, eight Iranians, and several citizens of Nepal and Nicaragua. Among them was an Afghan man in his early twenties.
His brothers had collaborated with the U.S. military. One served in the Afghan National Army. Another, a U.S.-trained pilot, was killed by the Taliban. Because of that service, the family received Taliban threats. An immigration judge had already granted the young man protection against deportation to Afghanistan, citing fear of Taliban persecution. He was sent to the Central African Republic anyway.
It was the second such flight since June 2025. The removals are part of a pattern, Hindustan Times noted, of deporting people to countries where they have no ties, often under agreements whose details are not public.
The Interpreter Who Held a Special Immigrant Visa
A second case, reported by The Boston Globe, shows the legal system at work. A former interpreter for the U.S. Army, referred to as Zia, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Hartford in July 2025. He held a Special Immigrant Visa approved in 2022.
The SIV program existed precisely for people like him. Created in 2009, it was designed to protect Afghan interpreters and allies from Taliban retribution. But its pace has slowed sharply. Under the Biden administration, processing ran at 2,000 to 3,000 visas per month. Under the Trump administration, that dropped to about 200 per month. Contracts covering transportation and legal fees were canceled.
In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security removed Afghanistan from the list of countries eligible for Temporary Protected Status. That change affected roughly 11,700 Afghans and made them eligible for deportation.
Zia received an expedited removal order based on what the Globe described as an unsubstantiated national security claim. A federal judge in Massachusetts later issued a stay, blocking his deportation while immigration proceedings continue.
The Legal and Diplomatic Options That Remain
The two cases illustrate how an Afghan ally can still find protection. Zia's path ran through federal court, where a judge paused the removal. The young man on the CAR flight had no such opportunity after his deportation order was carried out. Challenging an expedited removal order requires a court to intervene before the plane leaves.
The diplomatic route is weaker. Third-country agreements can provide a destination, but they may be secret and they do not require that the person has any connection to the receiving country. The State Department's human rights report from August 12 continued to document arbitrary detentions, kidnappings, and extrajudicial murder by the Taliban. That finding undercuts the argument that Afghanistan is safe for returnees.
What matters is the gap between America's promise and its process. SIVs were created because Afghans who helped the U.S. could not safely go home. With processing slowed and TPS protection removed, the legal shield has holes. Whether a court stay arrives in time, or a third country proves willing, can be a matter of chance.