Venezuelans make up the largest share of migrants deported to third countries since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, according to a Miami Herald analysis of federal data.

The records, which show that two of every five migrants deported to third countries are Venezuelan, were obtained by the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project through a public records request.

While the dataset, covering the first half of the year, is likely incomplete, it nonetheless reveals that roughly 2,900 Venezuelan nationals were deported to countries where they were neither born nor were citizens. Almost all were transferred to Spanish-speaking nations, including Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Spain and Portugal. But there were anomalies: At least two were sent to Austria, one to Italy, one to Syria, and one to the remote Pacific archipelago of Vanuatu.

Out of 7,900 total deportations to third countries so far this year, more than a third involved Venezuelans — a group that has increasingly been targeted by federal immigration authorities amid allegations that the Nicolás Maduro regime has deliberately released criminals and gang members into U.S.-bound migrant caravans.

“The Trump Administration is committed to keeping the President’s promise to the American people and removing illegal aliens from the United States,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson told the Herald.

In March, the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the mass deportation of 230 Venezuelans to El Salvador, labeling them criminals or members of the feared Tren de Aragua gang. Upon arrival, they were placed in El Salvador’s maximum-security prison known as CECOT. But according to immigration records, more than half of those deported under the so-called “alien enemies” executive order had no criminal convictions or pending charges. Many had simply applied for asylum.

After four months in Salvadoran custody, most were later flown to Venezuela.

The rest of the Venezuelans deported to third countries have experienced dramatically different circumstances. Approximately 1,850 were sent to Mexico, 680 to Honduras and more than 200 to El Salvador. While those migrants were not imprisoned upon arrival, many were left vulnerable and stranded without legal recourse, identification, or financial means to continue their journeys.

In northern Mexico, migrants are often dropped off in remote towns where there is little infrastructure and no access to legal assistance.

Elizabeth Amaran, a South Florida-based immigration attorney, said migrants are being sent to these locations with only a 10-day transit permit and no opportunity to apply for asylum or legal residency. Mexican authorities reportedly inform them upon arrival that no refugee process is available and instruct them to leave the country within days. Left without the option to travel north or remain legally, many find themselves trapped in a legal and humanitarian limbo.

“They’re put on buses and told they’re going to an office to apply for asylum in Mexico, but that never happens,” Amaran said. “When they arrive, Mexican officials tell them there’s no such process and just give them a 10-day pass to leave. They can’t go north, they can’t stay. They’re trapped.”

The policy currently driving the deportations to third countries is rooted in a July 9 memo by Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The directive grants immigration officials new latitude to deport migrants—sometimes with as little as six hours’ notice. The memo allows ICE to deport non-citizens, including long-term U.S. residents, to countries other than their own, so long as the individual is given an opportunity to speak with an attorney.

That discretionary power was reinforced by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the administration’s authority to deport migrants to third countries, provided they are given some form of notice. However, the ruling did not define what constitutes adequate notice or due process, creating a legal gray area that immigration lawyers say has left vulnerable migrants without protections.

In practice, legal advocates say the six-hour window is not sufficient for migrants to mount a legal defense or even contact family and lawyers. Many are held in remote facilities far from legal services or consular support. In some cases, migrants have been transferred from detention centers in Florida to others in Louisiana or Texas just days before being deported, with minimal warning.

South Florida, home to one of the largest concentrations of Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and Haitian immigrants in the country, has emerged as one of the regions most affected by the policy. Many of those affected are asylum seekers with pending applications, refugees with protected status, or longtime residents with old deportation orders that had not been previously enforced.

The governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are frequently described as totalitarian regimes and face multiple international accusations of human rights violations, while Haiti is currently under a wave of violence that has left most of the country under the control of criminal gangs.

Ineffective protections

The data show that 514 Cubans were reported to third countries during the first half of the year, most of them to Mexico. Around 230 Nicaraguans and roughly 90 Haitians were also moved to countries to which they had no connections.

Under the current guidelines, legal protections like “withholding of removal” — a status that allows individuals to remain in the U.S. if returning to their home country would result in persecution — have become increasingly ineffective. Migrants now must also prove that they would face harm in the third country to which they’re being sent, a difficult legal burden, especially when that country is unfamiliar or unsafe.

For many Venezuelans, Cubans and Nicaraguans in legal limbo, the erosion of the protections has meant renewed vulnerability. Some had fled political persecution, gang violence, or humanitarian collapse in their home countries. Others had built lives in the U.S. over many years, only to find themselves suddenly subject to removal proceedings under a legal framework that offers few options for appeal.

Cases involving Cuban migrants have also come under scrutiny. While the U.S. has historically limited deportations to Cuba due to Havana’s strict conditions for accepting returnees, the third-country policy has provided a loophole. Now, Cubans who would otherwise be shielded from deportation are being sent to Mexico or Central America, where they lack legal status, support networks or protection from violence and exploitation.

Two of Amaran’s recent cases involved Cuban men detained in Florida who were being held in the Krome detention center before being transferred to Louisiana detention facilities. One had a minor theft conviction; the other had no criminal record and was awaiting a decision on a family petition to legally migrate to the United States. Both, she said, were deported to Mexico without adequate warning or the opportunity to present a “credible fear” interview—a legal step that could have paused their removal and given them the chance to apply for asylum. Neither had legal representation at the time of deportation.

Once in Mexico, her clients were put on buses and were told that they would be taken to an office where they would be able to apply for a temporary status to stay in the country.

“But they were misled,” Amaran said. “They were tricked into getting on the buses to avoid any kind of confrontation, and were taken to a small town the middle of nowhere where officials told them, ‘There’s nothing for you here, we don’t have no papers, no permits to give you. So you have 10 days to leave the country.’”

They were given only a 10-day temporary pass stating that they could only travel south, not north, she said.

“So basically, they were left in the middle of nowhere, with no authorization to stay in the country and no money to leave the country. They had to start looking for people, relatives, that could help them leave Mexico, but even sending them money proved hard because they didn’t have the documents needed to collect the money transfered,” she said. “Only one of them found a way to get out, and that is because a relative was able to travel to where he was and got him out... and return to Cuba.”

In many deportations to third countries migrants are served removal notices only hours before their flights. Attorneys say the notices often arrive late at night or shortly before business hours begin, making it nearly impossible for detainees to contact legal counsel or consular services. Even when the opportunity to speak with an attorney exists in theory, the logistical reality—limited phone access, language barriers, remote detention centers—means that most deportations proceed without meaningful legal intervention.

The problem is compounded by bureaucratic technicalities. Migrants who fail to file their asylum applications within one year of arrival in the U.S. are automatically disqualified from the formal asylum process unless they can prove exceptional circumstances. Others who arrived legally as children but later lost their status due to minor infractions now find themselves targeted under the third-country deportation policy.

As the Trump administration doubles down on its hardline immigration agenda, advocates warn that the new deportation strategy undermines established humanitarian norms. By rerouting vulnerable migrants to unfamiliar nations with little to no infrastructure for receiving refugees, the policy effectively circumvents long-standing international commitments to asylum seekers.

Though the administration insists the deportations target criminals and threats to national security, available data suggest otherwise. The majority of deported Venezuelans had no criminal history. Many had applied for asylum or other forms of relief and were still awaiting outcomes. Others had been swept up in enforcement operations due to old removal orders or minor legal infractions.

The trend has become a source of concern for the leadership of Venezuela’s opposition, even though the movement continues to see Washington as its biggest ally in its struggle against Maduro.

Reacting to the administration sending Venezuelans to a maximum security prison in El Salvador, Venezuelan opposition leaders María Corina Machado and Edmundo González expressed support earlier this year for the U.S. government’s crackdown on the dangerous Tren de Aragua gang, but urged President Trump not to penalize honest, hard-working Venezuelans seeking refuge abroad.

“We urge the competent authorities... to take extreme precautions when administering justice, clearly distinguishing between criminals employed by the Maduro regime to commit crimes abroad and the vast majority of innocent migrants,” the opposition leaders said in a joint statement, “thus avoiding the unjust criminalization of Venezuelan migrants in general.”

©2025 Miami Herald. Visit at miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.