African States Shouldn't Help the U.S. Endanger Refugees

This article examines the alarming trend of African states facilitating the United States' deportation of asylum seekers, particularly those granted 'withholding of removal,' in direct contravention of international refugee law. Focusing on the case of Cameroonian women deported from the US to Equatorial Guinea and subsequently to Cameroon, despite judicial recognition of persecution risks, the piece dissects the legal obligations of all states involved under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the OAU Convention, and the Convention Against Torture. It highlights the principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition against indirect refoulement, arguing that such actions by African nations not only undermine their own international commitments but also render them complicit in endangering vulnerable individuals.

The recent deportation of two Cameroonian women from the United States, first to Equatorial Guinea and then summarily returned to Cameroon, despite having been granted 'withholding of removal' by US immigration judges, casts a stark light on the complex and often perilous landscape of international refugee protection. This incident, as reported by AllAfrica Cameroon, underscores a troubling pattern where African states appear to cooperate with the United States in practices that directly undermine fundamental principles of international law, particularly the bedrock principle of non-refoulement. The women's fear of persecution in Cameroon had been judicially recognized in the US, making their subsequent forced return a profound legal and humanitarian concern.

This article will delve into the legal frameworks governing refugee protection and the obligations of states involved in such deportations. It will analyze how the actions of the United States, Equatorial Guinea, and Cameroon potentially violate international and regional instruments designed to safeguard asylum seekers. The central thesis is that African states, as signatories to crucial refugee conventions, bear a primary responsibility to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and must resist participating in arrangements that facilitate the endangerment of refugees, thereby becoming complicit in breaches of international law.

The implications of such practices extend beyond individual cases, threatening to erode the international refugee protection regime and setting a dangerous precedent for the treatment of asylum seekers globally. For legal practitioners, understanding these intricate legal duties and the mechanisms of indirect refoulement is crucial for advocating on behalf of vulnerable populations caught in the crosshairs of national immigration policies and international cooperation agreements.

The principle of non-refoulement is a cornerstone of international refugee law, prohibiting states from expelling or returning a refugee "in any manner whatsoever" to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. This fundamental obligation is enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as well as in Article II(3) of the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. The prohibition against refoulement is widely considered to be a principle of customary international law, binding even on states not party to the 1951 Convention, and its application in cases involving torture is often regarded as a *jus cogens* norm, meaning a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permitted.

In the United States, the principle of non-refoulement is implemented through various domestic legal provisions, including 'withholding of removal' under Section 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). A grant of withholding of removal signifies that an immigration judge has determined it is "more likely than not" (a burden of proof higher than for asylum) that the individual's life or freedom would be threatened in their home country on account of a protected ground. While withholding of removal prevents deportation to the specific country of feared persecution, it does not grant permanent residency or a path to citizenship, and critically, it does not preclude removal to a third country that is not the country of feared persecution.

Both Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the OAU Convention. Cameroon has further enacted domestic legislation, including Law No. 2005/006 of 27 July 2005, to govern refugee status, and its Constitution recognizes the supremacy of ratified international treaties. Equatorial Guinea's Fundamental Law (1991) also recognizes the right to asylum. However, despite these commitments, Equatorial Guinea notably lacks a functional system for determining refugee status or providing protection, and there are credible reports of human rights abuses, including torture and arbitrary arrests.

The deportation of the Cameroonian women, despite their grant of 'withholding of removal' in the US, represents a multi-layered violation of international and domestic legal obligations. The US policy of "third country deportation" allows for the removal of individuals, even those with granted protection, to a country other than their country of origin, provided that country accepts them. This practice is highly contentious, as it often results in asylum seekers being sent to countries where their safety cannot be guaranteed, potentially leading to "chain refoulement" – onward deportation to the country of feared persecution.

In this specific case, the US's action of deporting individuals with a recognized fear of persecution to Equatorial Guinea, a country known for its lack of refugee protection mechanisms and human rights concerns, is problematic. While US law permits removal to a third country, the spirit of non-refoulement, particularly its customary international law aspect, dictates that states should not transfer individuals to jurisdictions where there is a real risk of indirect refoulement or other serious human rights violations. The phrase "in any manner whatsoever" in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention explicitly covers indirect refoulement, meaning a state cannot circumvent its obligations by deporting an individual to an intermediary country from which they are then returned to danger.

Equatorial Guinea's role is equally concerning. Despite being a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the OAU Convention, and its Fundamental Law recognizing the right to asylum, it has failed to establish a functional system for refugee protection. By accepting the Cameroonian women from the US and then promptly sending them back to Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea directly engaged in refoulement. This action violates its obligations under both international and regional refugee instruments, as it knowingly returned individuals to a territory where US judges had already determined their lives or freedom would be threatened. The lack of a robust asylum system in Equatorial Guinea means that the women likely had no meaningful opportunity to assert their protection claims, making their transfer a clear breach of the principle.

Cameroon's acceptance of its citizens, knowing they had sought asylum and been granted protection against return in the US, also raises questions about its adherence to international law. While a state generally has the right to receive its own nationals, this right is circumscribed when those nationals are refugees or asylum seekers whose return would expose them to persecution. Cameroon is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the OAU Convention, both of which prohibit refoulement. By accepting individuals who had been granted 'withholding of removal' from the US, and given the documented human rights concerns in Cameroon, the state risks being complicit in the violation of their protection rights. The incident highlights a concerning trend of African states, some reportedly under pressure or in exchange for incentives, participating in US third-country deportation schemes that effectively externalize and undermine international protection responsibilities.

The case of the Cameroonian women deported from the US, via Equatorial Guinea, back to Cameroon, serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of refugee protection in an increasingly complex global landscape. It exposes how the actions of powerful states, when combined with the acquiescence or insufficient protective mechanisms of transit countries, can lead to direct and indirect violations of fundamental international legal principles. The US, by deporting individuals granted 'withholding of removal' to a country without adequate asylum procedures, risks undermining its own commitments to non-refoulement. Equatorial Guinea's subsequent refoulement of these women to Cameroon represents a clear breach of its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the OAU Convention, exacerbated by its failure to establish a functional asylum system.

For legal practitioners across Africa, this incident underscores the critical importance of advocating for robust national asylum frameworks and holding governments accountable to their international commitments. African states must recognize their primary responsibility to protect refugees and resist participating in arrangements that facilitate the externalization of asylum processing or lead to indirect refoulement. The principle of non-refoulement is not merely a procedural hurdle but a humanitarian imperative. Attorneys must continue to challenge policies and practices that endanger asylum seekers, ensuring that the letter and spirit of international refugee law are upheld, and that African nations do not become unwitting partners in the erosion of global refugee protection standards.