Executive summary

This report reviews local involvement in gross human rights abuses against immigrants, focusing on forced disappearance and refoulement. Its findings reveal that the connections between Washington state and these crimes are broader and deeper than has been previously known.

They are broader because there are many more cases of Washingtonians being subjected to forced disappearance at the hands of the U.S. federal government than was previously known. Thus far we have documented:^[1]

• seven migrant Washingtonians who were expelled by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to El Salvador’s notorious megaprison CECOT, in violation of a federal court order;^[2]
• six Washingtonians who were sent by ICE to Guantánamo Bay without access to counsel or information to their families;^[3]
• one Washingtonian who was expelled by ICE to South Sudan, where he had no personal ties, following attempts to remove him in violation of a federal court order;^[4]
• two families who were held incommunicado in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities for weeks within our own state;
• and a very broad—so broad as to be unmeasurable under current conditions—universe of migrants who are being deported daily without access to any real form of due process, under conditions which may constitute refoulement.

And they are deeper because many more of our institutions, public and private, are involved in facilitating the forced disappearances of our neighbors than was previously known. These include:

• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and King County International Airport (Boeing Field), both of which provide the infrastructure through which deportations happen daily;
• Washington State’s Department of Corrections, which collaborates with ICE in the detention of migrants completing a prison sentence;
• Signature Aviation, a private company providing fuel and support to private charter flights operating for ICE at King County International Airport;
• and the Washington State Investment Board (WSIB), which invests the retirement funds of our public employees in the very businesses that brutalize our neighbors.

Complicity in forced disappearance is not a minor matter. When committed systematically against a civilian population, forced disappearance is considered a crime against humanity under international law. All institutions—federal, state and local; public and private—and all individuals are called to take active measures to avoid complicity in the networks that produce such violations. Our central purpose in publishing this report is to make all Washingtonians witness to what is happening on our watch, in the hopes that we might come together in new ways to stop these abuses.

Introduction

UWCHR has long been concerned about immigrants’ rights in our state; indeed, the state law establishing our Center mandates that we conduct research to inform public policy in this area.^[5] Our reports have documented numerous areas in which federal, state, and local governments’ practices deviate from international human rights standards in the treatment of migrants—as well as, happily, some areas where local and state practices here in Washington have led to real improvements in protections for immigrant rights.^[6]

Unfortunately, the gravity of contemporary human rights concerns surrounding the treatment of migrants has significantly deepened in recent months, to the point where crimes as egregious as forced disappearance and refoulement are now happening in our state. These are among those crimes known as gross violations of human rights,^[7] considered to have attained jus cogens status under international law.^[8] We believe that it is imperative to document in detail how these crimes occur in our own state, not only to denounce their occurrence but also to begin to identify ways to stop them.

Background: What constitutes a “gross” human rights violation?

All human rights are important, and their enforcement is interlocking; but international law and practice also recognize that some rights are clearly more fundamental than others. Scholars, legal practitioners, international truth commissions, and other institutions tasked with analyzing mass atrocities typically recur to adjectives like “gross,” “flagrant,” or “egregious” to convey this sense of severity,^[9] and urge that when such crimes occur, they require immediate action – because when unchecked, states engaging in these crimes may escalate their use of violence, resulting in campaigns of state terror and even, in the worst case, mass atrocities.^[10]

In international law, the rights considered so foundational as to brook no exception are sometimes referred to as jus cogens.^[11] Prohibitions on torture, genocide, forced disappearance, and refoulementfall into this category; they are universally binding at all times, not only in states that have ratified specific treaties, but as foundational principles of the modern global order.^[12]

Of course, the fact that such practices are accepted as jus cogens does not mean that tools for effective legal accountability are in place for sanctioning those responsible for their occurrence; the system of international human rights law is still evolving. But it does mean that there is a shared recognition, upheld by scholars, courts, and governments around the world, that certain harms are so egregious that they demand urgent attention when they occur. In this sense, these rights could be considered a “canary in the coal mine”—a set of principles which, when violated, signal the existence of a dire threat to all.

This report documents how these crimes are currently occurring within the state of Washington, with the knowledge and collaboration of our own institutions. We focus on two specific crimes which tend to be intertwined in the contemporary treatment of migrants: refoulement and enforced disappearance.

Refoulement

Refoulement is the practice of sending a person in government custody to a place where they are likely to face grave danger.^[13] The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in numerous international treaties and conventions, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), as well as numerous regional human rights instruments.^[14],[15] The United States has ratified both the CAT and the Refugee Convention, and has implemented both treaties by passing domestic legislation to prevent refoulement; these laws include the Refugee Act of 1980,^[16] and the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA).^[17],[18] The concept of refoulement is most often invoked when governments return refugees or asylum-seekers to dangerous conditions in their countries of origin, but it can also occur if a government sends a person to a third country where they would face persecution, torture, or ill-treatment, or which might in turn return them to their country of origin despite its dangers.^[19]

Enforced disappearance

The concept of enforced disappearance as a distinct crime is newer. While authoritarian governments around the world have secretly imprisoned and even killed people without due process throughout history, activists in 20th century Latin America were the first to argue that disappearance should be registered as a separate crime,^[20] rather than just an example of the already-typified crimes of arbitrary detention or extrajudicial execution. As the word “disappearance” suggests, in these cases victims may appear to vanish; even though it is typically presumed that they are in state custody, the concealment of the crime and resultant inability to corroborate victims’ well-being or ensure they have access to supportive resources, including legal counsel, create additional layers of suffering for victims and their loved ones.

The UN International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance^[21] defines the crime as requiring three elements:

1. The victim is deprived of liberty by a government, or non-government forces acting with state acquiescence or support; and
2. The state conceals the victim’s fate or whereabouts; and
3. This places the victim “outside the protection of the law.”^[22]

There is no minimum length of time for which a person must be held in these conditions for their detention to constitute an enforced disappearance.^[23] Indeed, the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances and Working Group on Enforced Disappearances warn that such abuses, even those of relatively short duration, often leave victims and families with such long-term trauma and fear of recurrence that they are effectively unable to access justice.^[24] It is for this reason that the crime of disappearance does not magically end if and when a person resurfaces in improved conditions of custody; the mere fact that they were held under such circumstances leaves lasting legacies, just as it would had they been tortured in custody. Relatedly, the mere fact that some information may be gleaned about a person through extraofficial channels—for example, if family members spotted a loved one in a photograph released to the media, or heard a rumor about where their relative was taken—does not mean they were not disappeared, since the responsibility of avoiding the practice of forced disappearance rests on states, not victims’ families. These rights and responsibilities are enumerated in Article 17 of the 2007 Convention, which explicitly bans secret detention, and requires states to maintain registers of all persons deprived of liberty, including the dates, location, and grounds for their detention.^[25]

It is not rare for forced disappearances to be transnational, for two reasons. First, international migrants are particularly vulnerable to both refoulement and enforced disappearance^[26] because there is often little transparency into the state practices of immigration enforcement, and because migrants, by definition, are on the move; this often makes it easier for crimes against them to go undetected by civil society. In this way, state practices of immigration enforcement can often involve both refoulement and enforced disappearance; today, multiple human rights bodies are currently grappling with cases that stem from the nexus of these crimes.^[27]

Second, it is not rare for disappearances to be transnational because the deliberate extraterritorialization of a person—placing them outside the reach of law by removing them from the national territory—is one way for states to strip people of their rights. For this reason, the Convention recognizes a near-universal jurisdiction for enforced disappearances, obliging states to avoid complicity in forced disappearance even where the disappeared person may ultimately be transferred outside their national territory: “A State shall take all necessary measures to exercise jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance when the offence is committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board of a ship or aircraft registered in that State, when the alleged offender is one of its nationals, and when the disappeared person is one of its nationals and the State considers it appropriate.”^[28] In cases where two or more states participate in a forced disappearance, the UN Working Group established under the Convention has the practice of registering the disappearance in the state where the person was last seen.^[29]

In the United States, many human rights organizations have documented the rising incidence of refoulement and enforced disappearance by U.S. immigration authorities along the U.S.-Mexico Border,^[30] where historically they have occurred in the largest numbers. Since President Trump took office in January 2025, however, immigration enforcement activity has shifted dramatically to the country’s interior;^[31] for this reason, we consider it vital to monitor these practices in our state.

While we share information here that is, in many cases, incomplete, this is the nature of human rights research into state crimes of this sort. Despite this, we have exercised great care to ensure the accuracy of what we report. The cases of disappearance enumerated below have all been corroborated by cross-referencing at least two distinct data sources. The sources consulted include multiple sets of ICE records released under the Freedom of Information Act, to both UWCHR and other parties;^[32] records from Washington’s Department of Corrections and local jails within our state, released to UWCHR under the Washington Public Records Act; federal court records accessed via PACER; records published by King County International Airport regarding ICE flights from Boeing Field; records compiled by national flight observer Tom Cartwright from Witness at the Border, based on observations of ICE flights nationwide; documents published by journalists and rights organizations; and interviews conducted by UWCHR Director Angelina Godoy. In most of these cases described below, the research involved line-by-line examination of anonymized national ICE enforcement and detention data, obtained via FOIA litigation by the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and published by the Deportation Data Project,^[33] to identify specific individuals who were disappeared based on known characteristics gleaned from other sources, thus corroborating their movements across time and space.

We are aware that in insisting on such rigor, we have likely missed some cases; there are accounts, for example, which we’ve heard about but have been unable to corroborate using available data. Sadly, we also anticipate that given the secrecy and fear surrounding immigration enforcement in the contemporary United States, future cases may continue to go undetected despite our best efforts. In large part, this report is intended as much as a denunciation of the documented cases as a plea for transparency and a cessation of collaboration from our state and local institutions who, against the secrecy of federal government practices, may be considered the last line of defense against the rampant violation of Washingtonians’ rights.

How the deportation machine works in Washington

Between January 1, 2025 and June 26, 2025, approximately 1,803 people were deported from ICE’s Seattle Area of Responsibility.^[34] These include people who were apprehended in Washington or Oregon, as well as those arrested elsewhere in the country and sent here to be held in ICE custody at the Northwest Detention Center^[35] in Tacoma. These people are Washingtonians, by virtue of their residence here—and so too are many of the institutions that take part in their deportation.

Of course, the decision to deport migrants from our state is made by federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), not Washington state agencies. But once ICE officers decide to deport someone, that person is put on a plane at one of our publicly-owned airports, with their final destination already determined. Their journey overseas is typically not via a direct flight; people being deported to Latin America, for example, are often transferred first to a location nearer the U.S. Mexico border, called a “staging facility” by ICE, from where they then depart overseas. Yet we know from ICE documents that decisions on whom to deport and when are made by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations personnel in each of ICE’s 25 field offices.^[36] For example, the below is an excerpt from a Significant Incident Report received by UWCHR via FOIA, discussing plans for the upcoming removal of a detained individual; while the location to which the person will ultimately be deported is redacted, the visible text illustrates the multi-step plans for their deportation made in advance by officials from Seattle’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) team.

Figure 1: Excerpt from ICE Significant Incident Report produced by ERO Seattle, dated May 16, 2025, detailing a May 23 deportation operation departing Boeing Field on May 20. Although the operation involves stops at airports and detention facilities in Arizona and Louisiana, this document illustrates that ICE’s Seattle Field Office was responsible for advance coordination of the deportation.

In sum, when migrants depart Seattle in ICE custody, they are already on their deportation journey—and this is reflected in the documents that accompany them as they go.

Figure 2: ICE conducts deportations and transfers of detained people via air travel through two main pathways. The majority of ICE’s air travel involves a system of private chartered companies, known as ICE Air, which, in Washington, primarily operates out of King County International Airport (Boeing Field), with FBO services provided by Signature Aviation. However, ICE documents obtained by UWCHR under FOIA also show significant usage of commercial airlines for deportation operations, including at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, with carriers such as Alaska, Delta, Qatar Airways, United, and others.

Two types of flights remove those en route to deportation from Washington state:

• ICE Air is a network of private charter planes, owned and operated by companies including Global X, Avelo Air, and Eastern, typically as subcontractors to ICE via its megacontract with broker CSI Aviation.^[37] Washingtonians being deported through this network typically depart through King County International Airport, commonly known as Boeing Field, to network hubs located at Mesa, Arizona; San Antonio and Harlingen, Texas; Miami, Florida; and Alexandria, Louisiana, where they may be briefly detained in a nearby “staging facility” prior to their removal from U.S. territory. At Boeing Field, the charter operators work with a Fixed Base Operator (FBO) called Signature Aviation; this is a private business that leases space at the airport and provides services such as fuel, cleaning, and air stairs to incoming and outgoing flights. There are currently three FBOs operating at Boeing Field, but Signature Aviation is the one that has serviced ICE flights at the airport since the flights resumed there in 2023. (See below for more on Signature Aviation and ICE Air flights via Boeing Field.)
• In some cases, deportations occur on regular commercial flights operating out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac),^[38] where deportees travel alongside other passengers. This occurs on multiple air carriers, including Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, Qatar Airways, and United Airlines. Sometimes individual deportees are placed on these flights; in other cases multiple deportees travel together. Some are “escorted removals” in which ICE agents fly alongside the person or people being deported on the flight; in other cases, agents witness deportees boarding the flight and document the flight’s departure, but do not physically accompany them on the journey. (For more on flights from Sea-Tac, see below.)

UWCHR has conducted a detailed review of multiple sets of records received via FOIA and the Washington state Public Records Act for all deportations occurring from Washington state in January and February 2025. During these two months—the only ones for which full information has been received to date, though we anticipate receiving more records in the weeks to come—322 people who had been detained at the Northwest Detention Center were transferred out of the facility; of these, 210 left on an ICE Air flight through Boeing Field, 104 left on a commercial flight through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, and 8 were driven to the Canadian border and deported to Canada.

While it has long been known that ICE uses commercial flights for some deportations,^[39] this represents a much larger proportion of deportations on commercial airlines than was previously known. During the period covered by this data, people deported to all countries other than Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Peru were all taken to Sea-Tac for deportation.^[40]

The deportation process has long involved violations of human rights. As UWCHR has reported in the past, migrants have reported ill-treatment, including racialized epithets and beatings, on charter deportation flights.^[41] Per ICE policy, all adults deported on these private charter flights are restrained in handcuffs, belly chains, and leg irons for the duration of the flight.^[42] Observers at King County’s Boeing Field have noted what could be the use of full-body restraints, such as the device known as the WRAP,^[43] on multiple occasions, although given poor visibility through airport cameras, it was impossible to confirm this.^[44] On commercial flights, deportees are sometimes boarded in handcuffs, though less is known about whether this is common or not.^[45]

Although new practices have further eroded immigrant rights in recent months, it is important to note that the practice of deporting people without due process is far from new. In fact, as UWCHR showed in its 2019 report on deportations from Boeing Field, for years many Washingtonians have been deported with no access to the courts whatsoever. Many of these are deportations by expedited removal, a category created by Congress in 1996 to fast-track deportations by removing many migrants’ access to the judicial process.^[46] Expedited removal contradicts international human rights standards on the treatment of migrants, because these require an individualized assessment of a migrant’s case prior to their deportation, including an opportunity for the migrant to contest the government’s decision and argue their case before a competent judicial body.^[47],[48]

This year, the Trump administration has sought to expand the use of expedited removal yet further,^[49] including against people who the U.S. government had previously authorized to enter the country.^[50] Summarily stripping people of rights they acquired through a lawful process, and then expelling them without any meaningful process of judicial review, exacerbates existing concerns about the longstanding lack of due process in deportation proceedings.

From January 1, 2025 to June 26, 2025, some 732 people (40% of a total of 1803 removals) were deported by ICE’s Seattle Area of Responsibility via expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, two categories under which people can be deported without access to judicial review. Of the 442 people deported via expedited removal, nearly half (213) are recorded as having expressed fear of persecution or violence upon deportation.^[51]

Against this backdrop of “regular” rights violations in the deportation process, we note with particular alarm the new emergence of cases of refoulement and enforced disappearance.

Cases of Refoulement and Disappearance in Washington

In Washington, refoulement occurs through two mechanisms: the deportations of some migrants to countries of origin where they face grave danger; and the expulsions of others to third countries without meaningful opportunities to contest their expulsion, and without mechanisms by which to verify that their rights will be protected in the country to which they are expelled.^[52] Neither of these practices are new phenomena, but they are much more urgent now due to the dismantling of the asylum system^[53] and the recent Supreme Court “shadow docket” decision greenlighting deportation to third countries.^[54]

Discussions of refoulement often focus on the dangers of deportations to countries experiencing widespread violence or civil unrest, given the common presumption that in such contexts many people are vulnerable. Yet the actual principle of non-refoulement, and refugee law in general, does not revolve around characterizations of entire countries as inherently dangerous. Quite the contrary: international law requires a case-specific analysis of the vulnerabilities of each migrant and the contexts in which they can be free, in recognition of the fact that even within ostensibly “stable” countries, certain populations may experience grave rights violations.^[55] This means that without the ability to evaluate each case of a person deported from Washington state, we cannot begin to estimate how widespread the phenomenon of refoulement is; we can only share examples of certain cases we have been able to document.

Disappeared in El Salvador

Figure 3: Map showing the travel routes of the six individuals transported by ICE from King County’s Boeing Field to CECOT, a prison in El Salvador. All six were booked out of NWDC on March 8, 2025, and flew on the same GlobalX flight from Boeing Field to Webb County Detention Center in Laredo, Texas, from where they were then sent to CECOT on March 15, 2025.

According to ICE records made public under FOIA and confirmed by other sources, at least seven Venezuelans who resided for a time in Washington were among the men expelled to the notorious Salvadoran megaprison known as CECOT (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or Terrorism Confinement Center) in what Human Rights Watch,^[56] Amnesty International,^[57] and other human rights organizations have concluded constitutes enforced disappearance. United Nations human rights experts, including members of the UN Working Group on Forced and Involuntary Disappearances; the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons; the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions; and the Special Rapporteur on Torture issued a joint statement about this in April 2025, expressing “grave concern about El Salvador’s prisons, where there have been reports of deaths, torture and ill-treatment, violence between prisoners and enforced disappearances. Prison conditions are allegedly inhumane, contrary to international standards, with detainees held in overcrowded, boxed cages, without bare necessities such as mattresses, and with inadequate medical care.”^[58]

CECOT is a facility built for brutality. When these men arrived, they were told they would never leave.^[59] They were subjected to extremely difficult conditions while there: some reported there was no exposure to the light of day, so no ability to discern night from day except by the air temperature;^[60] others reported they had no mattresses, pillows or sheets, and were forced to sleep on metal in the tropical heat, without fans or air conditioning and in conditions of extreme overcrowding.^[61] They were not allowed contact with attorneys, families, or the outside world, and were subjected to regular physical abuse, which reportedly included, in at least one case, a sexual assault perpetrated by guards.^[62] Beatings were brutal, administered regularly to all the detained men but additionally to those who committed even minor disciplinary infractions and were removed to an isolation area within the prison known as “La Isla,” from which others could hear their screams.^[63] In recent U.S. legal proceedings, Venezuelan national Edicson David Quintero Chacón described being beaten every day during his 125 days in CECOT, “subsisting on little food and dirty water,” and having emerged with psychological wounds that will likely never heal.^[64]

In at least seven cases, immigrants with ties to Washington state were sent to CECOT:

1. Wladimir Vera Villamizar reportedly entered the United States on February 5, 2024. He was initially detained between February and October 2024 at Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico, but was released when he became ill, and moved to Seattle, where he was put on an ankle monitor while his immigration proceedings transpired, according to his mother in an interview with Venezuelan media.^[65] In December 2024, he became ill again, and was hospitalized for many weeks; following his release from the hospital on January 15, 2025, ICE told him to bring his medical paperwork to the Tukwila office for a check-in, which he did on January 27. At that check-in, he was detained; ICE records show he was booked into the Tukwila hold room and then transferred to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma.
2. The circumstances around Yuber Moron Cabrera’s entry to the country are unknown, but ICE records show he was originally encountered by ICE in Texas and detained between May 2023 and June 2024 in the El Paso Service Processing Center and Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, from which he was eventually released on an order of supervision on June 4, 2024. He was subsequently arrested in Washington on January 26, 2025, possibly at an ICE check-in,^[66] and sent to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, according to ICE data obtained via FOIA.
3. Alirio Guillermo Belloso Fuenmayor crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in 2023; according to his family, he then headed for Utah, where he had two cousins, while he awaited the resolution of his immigration case.^[67] The family reported that he was working as a delivery driver and awaiting for his asylum interview when he was apprehended by ICE on January 27, 2025 at a gas station. ICE records show he was initially held at the Nevada Southern Detention Center before being sent to Tacoma on February 4, 2025, presumably on the GlobalX plane which arrived at Boeing Field at 10:51 am from Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas.^[68]
4. Nery Suárez-Salas was living in Utah at the time of his arrest in Salt Lake City on January 23, 2025. According to ProPublica, “Suárez worked in construction in Venezuela, where his daughter lives, his brother told us. In the U.S., he lived in Chicago and Utah, where he worked plowing snow and as a day laborer. He was detained by immigration officials in January and remained in custody until he was flown and imprisoned in El Salvador. Before he was sent to the maximum-security prison, he told his brother he was being tied to the Tren de Aragua gang because of his tattoos, which include a star with his brother’s name and a crown with their grandmother’s name.”^[69] ICE records reviewed by UWCHR show that Suárez-Salas was transferred from the Nevada Southern Detention Center to the NWDC in Tacoma on February 4, 2025, presumably on the same GlobalX plane from Las Vegas to Boeing Field which transported Belloso Fuenmayor.
5. According to court documents from the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas, Robinson Saavedra-Caruci entered the United States around September 17, 2023 near El Paso, having been deported earlier that year. He was apprehended by the Border Patrol and prosecuted for illegal reentry, a charge on which he was detained for almost eight months in Otero, New Mexico, prior to being released on an order of supervision, according to ICE records released under FOIA. Saavedra-Caruci was re-arrested on January 26, 2025, possibly on an ICE check-in, and taken to the Nevada Southern Detention Center where he was held until February 4, 2025, at which point he was transferred to the NWDC in Tacoma, also presumably arriving into Boeing Field on the same Global X flight.
6. Maikel Moreno-Ramirez arrived in the United States in January 2024, and settled in Las Vegas, where he worked installing floors and doors in newly constructed apartment buildings, according to ProPublica.^[70] ICE records show he was enrolled in the Alternatives to Detention program, meaning he was required to use an ankle monitor, phone app, or other form of digital monitoring; he was apprehended on September 25, 2024 at a routine immigration check-in,^[71] and taken to the Nevada Southern Detention Center where he was held until his transfer to the NWDC on February 4, presumably on the same flight as the men above.

On the morning of March 8, 2025, all six of these men were booked out of the NWDC, according to ICE data and other documents reviewed by UWCHR. They left Washington on the flight operated by Global X that departed Seattle’s King County International Airport at 11:47 am on March 8 en route to Harlingen, Texas. That flight is visible on publicly-accessible flight trackers, from which the below screenshot is taken, but it is inexplicably missing from the roster of ICE Air flights that King County publishes^[72] in purported compliance with its 2023 Executive Order committing to transparency about the airport’s role in deportations. All six men were then booked into the Webb County Detention Center in Texas the next day and remained there until March 15, 2025, when they were expelled to El Salvador and taken to CECOT.

Figure 4: A screenshot from the public flight tracking website ADS-B Exchange (www.adsbexchange.com), showing the path of the March 8, 2025 flight operated by the private air travel charter company Global X, transporting six men from the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, WA, to Harlingen, TX, en route to El Salvador’s CECOT prison.

7. Another Venezuelan with ties to Washington, Kenlyn Rafael Rodríguez Rojas^[73] originally entered the United States with authorization of border officials in April 2023.^[74] According to RFK Human Rights, he then reportedly moved with his brother to Washington state, where he began working as a delivery driver and processing his application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS).^[75] It is not known whether he had moved away from Washington or was simply travelling in New York at the time of his arrest there on January 13, 2025; he was then detained there until March 9, when he was transferred to El Valle Detention Facility in Texas and from there, expelled on March 15 to El Salvador.

On July 18, 2025, 252 Venezuelan men were released from CECOT and transferred to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap negotiated between the U.S. and Venezuelan governments.^[76] Because the names of all those released have not been publicly disclosed, UWCHR has been unable to confirm whether the seven men with known ties to Washington were among this group. Although their return to Venezuela is a positive development, it does not erase the responsibility of the U.S. government, GEO Group, King County, Signature Aviation, and Global X for their roles in transporting prisoners to a site where their disappearance and torture was a foreseeable outcome.

Furthermore, while UWCHR does not have access to information about the circumstances that led the seven men with ties to our state to flee Venezuela, it is possible that for some or all of them, as for many Venezuelans, return to their country of origin constitutes refoulement. In Venezuela, regular practices of politically-motivated killings, disappearances, and torture against opponents of the Maduro regime have been well-documented.^[77] For Venezuelans who were government critics and fled because they feared such fates, deportation to their country of origin would likely place them in grave danger. As the American Immigration Council reports, “Many of the individuals sent to CECOT by the U.S. government had pending asylum claims and expressed credible fear of return to Venezuela. Their forced return to Venezuela, without due process to address their requests for asylum in the United States, raises significant questions about the United States’ compliance with domestic and international legal obligations.”^[78]

Between January 1 and June 26, 2025, approximately 125 Venezuelans were deported from ICE’s Seattle Area of Responsibility; most of these did not pass through CECOT, but refoulement concerns remain. Per ICE data, 83 were deported from Washington to Venezuela, 42 others were sent to third countries.^[79] In at least some of these cases, Venezuelans residing in Washington were threatened that they would be sent to El Salvador’s CECOT,^[80] thus pressuring them to agree to return to their country of origin even in cases where it may have been a life-threatening choice.

In addition, the CECOT facility in El Salvador does not only detain Venezuelans; although there has still been no official accounting of who was sent to CECOT, the media has reported that 23 Salvadorans were expelled alongside the Venezuelans on March 15, 2025.^[81] The National Immigration Law Center reports two additional flights transporting Venezuelans and Salvadorans to CECOT: one on March 31, 2025 apparently aboard a U.S. military plane, revealed in a social media post by Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele,^[82] which NILC says it believes carried seven Venezuelans and ten Salvadorans;^[83] and one on April 12 or 13, revealed in an April 13 social media post from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio,^[84] which NILC believes transported seven Venezuelans and three Salvadorans.^[85] It is not known whether these people remain in CECOT or other prison facilities; their names have not been made public and their fate is entirely unknown.

On August 1, a coalition of human rights organizations noted that at least 36 Salvadorans were still being held incommunicado in El Salvador following their transfer from the United States to CECOT in March;^[86] UWCHR does not know whether any of them are from Washington.

Furthermore, concerns about rights violations in El Salvador are not limited to CECOT. Under El Salvador’s “state of exception,” a policy which has been in place since 2022, Salvadorans in prisons across the country are denied their right to an attorney, and to any communication with the outside world, to the point where many may be legitimately considered to have been disappeared.^[87] Human Rights Watch has noted repeated cases of torture, ill-treatment, and incommunicado detention in Salvadoran prisons which may, in some cases, constitute forced disappearance.^[88] While CECOT has received the most attention, conditions in these other Salvadoran prisons may in fact be even worse: multiple sources note that physical abuse, basic needs deprivation, and torture are widespread across the prison system.^{[89], [90]}

No one knows how many Salvadoran deportees are imprisoned upon their return to El Salvador, but it is likely that many are—particularly those with tattoos or criminal records, since these attributes place them at higher risk for targeting by the Bukele regime, and the US government shares law enforcement data with its Salvadoran counterparts, thus facilitating their identification upon arrival.^[91]From January 1 to June 26, 2025, 17 Salvadorans were deported from Washington state to El Salvador; there is no way to know how many may have been subjected to such crimes upon arrival.

Disappeared in Guantánamo Bay

ICE records also show that six Washingtonians were sent to Guantánamo Bay in 2025, part of what human rights organizations have denounced as a practice of “thwart[ing] access to counsel” by holding immigrants “incommunicado, without access to attorneys, family, or the outside world.”^[92] Similar to the cases of those sent to CECOT, in some cases families of those sent to Guantánamo were only able to ascertain their location after spotting them in photos released to the press; they had received no notification of their loved ones’ transfer, and their searches through ICE’s Detainee Locator and other means had proven fruitless.^[93] After a lawsuit challenged this practice, those held in Guantánamo were reportedly granted “limited and plainly insufficient access to counsel,”^[94] and some were sent elsewhere, though ICE records show that as late as June, some immigrants were still held in the Guantánamo Bay camps.

Figure 5: Map showing the travel routes of the six individuals with ties to Washington state, transported from King County’s Boeing Field or Sea-Tac International Airport to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after stopping at ICE detention facilities in Arizona, Texas, and Louisiana.

In at least six cases, ICE sent immigrants with ties to Washington state to Guantánamo, according to records released under FOIA:

1. José Medina Andrade came to the United States in 2023 with his family, seeking safety from gang violence in Venezuela. For reasons that are unclear, in the asylum process his case was separated from that of his wife and two children, but he was detained and deported back to Venezuela, the very country he had fled in fear. Desperate to escape and be reunited with his family, he returned to the United States, but because crossing the border after deportation is considered a criminal offense, he was apprehended, detained, and convicted in a Texas federal district court of illegal reentry. He was later released on bond, and moved with his family to Washington state in September 2024; this move, however, violated the terms of his probationary release, and as a result, he was arrested while shopping at Walmart in Renton^[95] on November 14, 2024.^[96] He was ordered detained and returned to Texas,^[97] where he remained until, to their surprise, the family received a call on February 7 saying that José had been sent to Guantánamo Bay. His family was only able to confirm this when his name appeared on a list published by the New York Times of 53 Venezuelans sent to Guantánamo.^[98] Despite this, the ICE detainee locator reportedly listed his location as Florida.^[99] According to community organizations, he and other Venezuelans held at Guantánamo were then deported back to Venezuela on February 20.^[100]
2. A Salvadoran citizen^[101] was booked into the NWDC on February 4, 2025, and spent a month detained there until being booked out on March 4, 2025. That day, an ICE Air flight left Boeing Field to Arizona which most likely he was on; he then travelled through various staging facilities in Arizona, Louisiana, and Texas until departing for Guantánamo Bay’s Windward Holding Facility on March 29, 2025. From Guantánamo, he was removed to El Salvador on March 31, 2025.^[102]
3. A Salvadoran citizen was arrested following release from prison in California and booked into the NWDC on June 13, 2024. ICE records show he was held there until March 29, 2025, upon which time he was booked out briefly to the Seattle hold room and presumably taken to Sea-Tac for a commercial flight to El Paso,^[103] where he was held for a single day prior to transfer to Guantánamo. In Guantánamo, records show he was also held a single day before being deported to El Salvador on March 31, 2025.^[104]
4. A Nicaraguan citizen, originally detained in the Krome Detention Center in Miami, was brought to the NWDC on August 27, 2024 and held there until May 6, 2025 when he left Seattle, presumably on the ICE Air flight reported to have departed Boeing Field that day. Records show he was then transferred through two additional facilities before landing in Guantánamo on May 20, 2025.
5. A Nicaraguan citizen was brought into the NWDC on May 1, 2025, likely after being arrested by the Border Patrol.^[105] He was held there until the afternoon of May 29, when he was transferred to a staging facility known as the Arizona Removal Operations Coordination Center. Presumably, he departed Seattle on the ICE Air flight which left Boeing Field on May 29; although that flight initially went from Seattle to Denver, the same plane continued on to Phoenix. He spent the night in Arizona, and the following day departed to the Guantánamo Migrant Operations Center, with a two-hour stop over at the ICE facility in Port Isabel, Texas. ICE records show he was held in Guantánamo Bay from May 30 to June 12, and then shipped out to Alexandria, Louisiana, from where he was deported.
6. A Nicaraguan citizen was located by ICE in Yakima on May 17, 2025 and taken to the NWDC. He remained in Tacoma until May 29, when he was transferred along the same flight path as individual #4 above, presumably departing Seattle on an ICE Air flight from Boeing Field. He arrived in Guantánamo Bay on May 30, and ICE records show he was booked out of Guantánamo for purposes of removal on June 19, though they do not reveal where he was sent.^[106]

Disappeared in third countries

Still other Washingtonians have been disappeared in the process of deportation to third countries. Tuan Thanh Phan, for example, arrived in Washington as a child refugee from Vietnam; he grew up in Tacoma, where he met his wife, Ngoc Phan. At the age of 18, he was sentenced to prison for his role in a fatal shooting.^[107] As a result of this conviction, he lost his green card, and expected to be deported to Vietnam at the conclusion of his time in prison. On March 3, 2025, upon completing his sentence, he was released from Department of Corrections custody; ICE officers took custody of him upon release and detained him in the Northwest Detention Center.

Figure 6: Map of Tuan Phan’s removal from Washington state to South Sudan. On March 3, 2025, Washington resident Tuan Phan was transferred to ICE detention after completing a prison sentence. From the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, WA, Phan was flown on April 4 to ICE detention facilities in Texas, and then sent to South Sudan on May 20. Due to an emergency court ruling, the plane was grounded at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. Following a Supreme Court ruling, Phan was flown to South Sudan on July 4.

A few days later, Phan was sent to a staging facility in Texas;^[108] his wife began coordinating with ICE officials there, expecting his eventual deportation to Vietnam. But on May 19, he was told he would be deported the next day to a third country—initially, he was told it would be South Africa, and then later, that he was headed to South Sudan.^[109] While Phan objected, he had no meaningful opportunity to research conditions in those countries, much less assert his rights to non-refoulement. He was able to call his wife just prior to departure, and she alerted attorneys, but the eight men were already in the air by the time federal judge Brian Murphy convened a hearing on the evening of May 20. When the judge asked where the plane was located, and where it was headed to, the government’s attorney responded that that information was classified.^[110]

Eventually, the judge ruled that the government had to comply with at least minimal due process requirements, since the men had not been granted an opportunity to contest their deportation to South Sudan. The plane carrying the men landed in Djibouti, where they were held for weeks, shackled in a shipping container and unable to reach their families or attorneys for long stretches of time.^[111]During this time, an ICE official reportedly told Phan’s wife that even his supervisors did not know where Phan was.^[112] Phan had been forcibly disappeared. But upon the Supreme Court’s ruling authorizing third country deportations,^[113] the U.S. government completed Phan’s deportation to South Sudan on July 4, 2025.^[114] Phan’s case combines enforced disappearance and refoulement.^[115]

Disappeared within Washington state

In still other cases, enforced disappearance has occurred without leaving the state of Washington. For example, on April 26, 2025, a family of asylum-seekers from Africa were travelling in Washington state when they were apprehended by Customs and Border Protection agents.^[116] The family consisted of a mother and father and their four children, the youngest of whom was an 11-month-old Washington-born U.S. citizen;^[117] the mother was in the second trimester of a high-risk pregnancy. The Border Patrol held the family for twenty-four days in a single windowless cell, equipped only with two benches and a toilet: no bedding, no bathing facilities, and no toys or materials for the children. They were not allowed to make phone calls, and community members, including UWCHR researchers, who called the Border Patrol during this period were refused any information about the family’s presence although the ICE Locator listed them as “in CBP custody.” As calls and concern began to mount, CBP chose to release the family on May 20, thus ending the period of their forced disappearance.

Similarly, on June 28, a female Honduran national and her four U.S. citizen children were detained by CBP in its Ferndale station and held without access to counsel for about two weeks;^[118] the children’s father, separately, was detained in Portland and sent to the Northwest Detention Center.^[119] Furthermore, their detention was only exposed after the family’s Congressional Representative, Rep. Maxine Dexter, drove in person to multiple sites at which she had been told the family was located, including the CBP office in Ferndale.^[120] Upon arrival in Ferndale, she was told they had departed to a facility in Seattle.^[121] The case raises obvious concerns about forced disappearance; the family did not appear in the ICE Locator, they appear to have been moved to avoid detection,^[122] and the fact that they were held without charges and denied access to their attorney clearly placed them outside the effective protection of the law.

It is impossible to know if others may have been subjected to similar treatment in our state, but it is very possible, since this appears to be a nationwide trend. According to Human Rights First and Refugees International, “While CBP facilities are intended for short-term processing (the government requires that people are not held longer than 72 hours), the government routinely jails people for longer than a month in CBP custody, including families and children…While detained in CBP custody, people are routinely held incommunicado.”^[123] While ICE offers a notoriously ill-functioning detainee locator for attorneys or family members seeking to know where a loved one is held, CBP lacks even this level of transparency.^[124]

Who is responsible?

Most Washingtonians would agree that enforced disappearance and refoulement are wrong. Yet Washington institutions have sought to deflect evidence of their involvement in the chain of events that lead to such abuses by claiming these heinous crimes are the sole responsibility of the federal government.

Of course, the primary entity bearing responsibility for these abuses is the U.S. federal government. Under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, state institutions cannot interfere with or regulate the operations of the U.S. federal government.^[125] As a result, Washington’s “sanctuary” law, the Keep Washington Working Act, cannot prevent federal agencies from carrying out immigration enforcement in Washington; it can only prevent certain forms of information-sharing and collaboration with federal civil immigration enforcement activities.

Yet the federal government relies on the collaboration of many Washington institutions to carry out enforced disappearances. In some cases, this is active collaboration, like the Washington Department of Corrections’ handing over those who have served their sentence to ICE, or the work of GEO Group and Signature Aviation, private companies that profit from ICE’s abuse of Washingtonians. In other cases, the collaboration amounts to looking the other way while other parties brutalize Washingtonians, as King County and the Port of Seattle appear to do while deportation flights depart from their airports. Yet international law requires all parties to actively avoid complicity in enforced disappearances. Washington can do better.

Figure 7: March 8, 2025 ICE deportations from Washington state. By cross referencing documents obtained under FOIA and public records requests, UWCHR researchers documented a snapshot of ICE deportations on a single day in Washington state. On this particular day—March 8, 2025—11 people were booked out for removal from the NWDC, including six Venezuelan men sent to CECOT prison in El Salvador via Texas, who were flown out of King County International Airport on a Global X flight. Others were removed via Sea-Tac airport on commercial airline flights. An additional four people were recorded as removed that day, including a UK citizen at the Blaine, WA Port of Entry; and three Brazilians via Miami International Airport under the authority of the Seattle Area of Responsibility removals docket.

State government

Of the cases mentioned here, the disappearance and refoulement of Tuan Phan is clearly a result of the Washington Department of Corrections’ collaboration with ICE. In 2019, when Washington passed the Keep Washington Working Act, then-Gov. Jay Inslee insisted upon a “carve-out” for the Department of Corrections to enable the agency to continue its practice of facilitating the transfer of people who have completed DOC sentences into ICE custody.^[126] This practice, sometimes referred to as “double punishment,”^[127] means that immigrant Washingtonians, including green card holders, are channeled into ICE detention and deportation upon completing their prison sentence—effectively a second set of punishments that do not apply to U.S. citizens. While 2025 data is not yet available, in 2024, 81 such individuals were transferred from DOC to ICE custody. On any given day, approximately 4% of the DOC population is subject to an ICE detainer;^[128] these individuals are at high risk for enforced disappearance or refoulement, outcomes that the State of Washington facilitates through its collaboration with ICE.

What’s more, the State of Washington cannot claim it is unaware of the potential for such outcomes. For example, records obtained via public records request show that in February 2025, DOC officials were informed by ICE of the arrest of an individual who had been released by DOC on community supervision;^[129] ICE further informed DOC staff that the arrested individual was being considered for possible transfer to Guantánamo Bay, noting, “He is from Venezuela a point of interests [sic] for ICE.”^[130] This suggests that Washington DOC officials were informed that Venezuelans were being specifically targeted by ICE because of their nationality, and that this targeting could result in the enforced disappearance of a specific individual to Guantánamo Bay.

Figure 8: February 25, 2025 e-mail from Washington Department of Corrections ICE Liaison Virgil L. Wallace to colleagues memorializing a phone call from ICE informing of the arrest on February 21, 2025 of an individual released on community supervision (a “SI” or “supervised individual”); the message notes that ICE “inform[ed] DOC he was in custody possible moved to Guantanamo Bay. He is from Venezuela a point of interests [sic] for ICE.”

Local government

King County

King County owns and operates the King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field, the site through which most Washingtonians are deported, some to fates that include forced disappearance and refoulement. In 2019, when it was revealed that tens of thousands of people had been deported through this airport, many through processes that denied them due process,^[131]then-County Executive Dow Constantine issued an Executive Order seeking to curtail the use of the airport for deportation purposes; without altering the terms of existing FBO contracts, the county pledged its intention to incorporate language in new contracts prohibiting the servicing of deportation flights.^[132] Amid the controversy, the FBO which had been servicing the flights, Modern Aviation, chose to cease doing business with ICE. The federal Department of Justice sued the county over Constantine’s Executive order, and in 2023, a federal judge ruled in favor of the federal government.^[133] This time a new FBO—Signature Aviation—stepped forward to service the flights at Boeing Field.

At this time, the county issued a new Executive Order promising to adhere with the judge’s order, but committing to publish regular information about all deportation flights from the airport, and to work proactively with immigrant community and Congressional leaders to address deportation-related concerns.^[134] On both counts, it appears that the county has failed to keep its promises. In its Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, the county committed to “publish monthly statistics on King County’s public website… documenting the number of flights operated by either ICE or its private contractors for the transportation and deportation of immigrant detainees.”^[135] But the website lists only a fraction of the total flights documented by national flight observer Tom Cartwright from Witness at the Border, and verifiable through publicly available flight trackers; it omits flights on March 6, March 8, April 1, April 8, April 14, May 1, May 4, June 1, June 6, June 7, June 9, July 5, July 17, and July 31.^[136]

Since 2023, ICE Air flights operating at King County Airport have been observed by teams of volunteers working with grassroots organization La Resistencia. According to La Resistencia, airport officials have told them they do not receive advance notice of ICE Air flights,^[137] but records received by UWCHR and other parties via public record requests show that FBOs operating at the airport request gate space well in advance of flights using a system called GoApron; this is then approved by airport officials to ensure that multiple FBOs are not vying for the same space at the same time. For example, in a June 5 email, county employee Sean Moran writes to FBO Modern Aviation, “You can continue to use Gate 22 for AC parking. I see a note in GoApron that says you’ll utilize the Triangle portion of Gate 22 which is appreciated to accommodate for both DART and the ICE flights (one of which will be here tomorrow).”^[138] Despite Moran’s advance awareness of that June 6 flight, for some reason it is not reflected on the county’s list of flights.

Furthermore, the county has not included data on the number of passengers on any of these flights, despite its commitment to do so. Nor has it taken action, as far as UWCHR is aware, to work with immigrant communities or Washington’s Congressional delegation on proactively addressing the human rights concerns raised by the flights. While the county is legally obligated to adhere to the terms of the 2023 judicial ruling, it can do so while at the same time taking steps to avoid complicity in gross human rights abuses.

Port of Seattle

In addition, many deportations take place on commercial airlines from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, operated by the Port of Seattle. Documents received by UWCHR through public records requests show that in January and February 2025, a total of 314 people who had been in detention in Tacoma were taken out of the facility and eventually deported by air; of these, 104 left on a commercial flight through Sea-Tac.

Furthermore, via FOIA request UWCHR obtained copies of all DHS/ICE Official Transportation Orders issued during an 11-day period in early March 2025. These forms instruct deportation officers to transport and accompany people to or from detention and deportation. From March 4 to March 15, the forms show that officers were instructed to escort people to SeaTac airport to board commercial flights 35 times, and to transport people arriving via commercial flights into SeaTac and take them to the Northwest Detention Center six times. Of these 41 total flights from/to SeaTac, 17 were operated by Alaska Airlines; six were operated by Qatar Airways, five by Delta Airlines, four by United Airlines, and nine by other carriers.^[139]

For example, the below document obtained by UWCHR via FOIA request instructs a deportation officer to transport a specific passenger, who holds a passport from Uzbekistan, to Sea-Tac, where they will board a Delta Airlines flight to New York’s Kennedy Airport for eventual deportation; the language “escorted removal to last US port” suggests the person will be accompanied on part, but not all, of their deportation journey. The highlighted text visible below one of the redactions reads, “Do not walk detainees through Sea-Tac airport. They must be escorted to the jetway to board via the tarmac.” This language suggests both that ICE aims to conceal its operations at Sea-Tac by not walking through the terminal with other departing passengers; and that airport authorities^[140] must be aware of these operations so as to grant ICE access to the tarmac so as to avoid detection.

Figure 9: ICE Transportation Order dated March 10, 2025, instructing agents to pick up a detained person with a Uzbekistan passport at the Northwest Detention Center and transport them to Sea-Tac airport for Delta Airlines Flight #452 to New York. The highlighted text visible below one of the redactions reads, “Do not walk detainees through Sea-Tac airport. They must be escorted to the jetway to board via the tarmac.”

The below Transportation Order offers some insight into how GEO Transport, Inc. (GTI) buses access the tarmac via the SeaTac Airport Entrance Tarmac Gate, rather than via the terminal, presumably thus avoiding public awareness. In this case, as in many but not all of the Transportation Orders reviewed, the person facing deportation was first taken to the Seattle Hold Room (routinely abbreviated in ICE documents as SEAHOLD), which is located in Tukwila.

Figure 10: ICE Transportation Order dated March 3, 2025, instructing agents to pick up detained people at ICE’s Seattle Hold Room (“SEAHOLD”) in Tukwila and transport them to Sea-Tac for Alaska Airlines flight #408. The document includes instructions for agents to call Sea-Tac airport an hour prior to arrival to confirm that the operation is still on schedule; and upon arrival at the Sea-Tac Airport Entrance Tarmac Gate to confirm the inspection gate.

In May, two U.S. permanent residents—Maximo Londonio and Rodante Rivera—were detained for days at Sea-Tac airport upon returning from the Philippines.^[141] In Londonio’s case, he was reportedly held for more than five days; during this time, he was not listed as detained in the ICE Detainee Locator, and his family was not informed when he was finally transferred to the Northwest Detention Center.^[142] In response to public outcry about these abuses at the airport, on May 21, 2025, Port of Seattle Commission president Toshiko Grace Hasegawa clarified that the Port has no jurisdiction over CBP operations, but emphasized, “As a public agency, the Port of Seattle remains committed to ensuring that SEA Airport reflects our RAISE values: Respect, Anti-Racism & Equity, Integrity, Stewardship, and Excellence. These values are not just aspirational — they are the standard by which we hold ourselves accountable. We will continue to push for greater transparency and communication from CBP, and for regular briefings on how federal immigration policies are being implemented on our premises. And we will continue to advocate for the rights of all people. Our community expects — and deserves — nothing less.”^[143]

The Port Commissioners issued a further statement on May 23, 2025: “Port of Seattle Commissioners are deeply concerned by reports that individuals have been held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) for extended periods of time. Immigration enforcement is entirely within federal jurisdiction, and we are working with our congressional delegation on these matters. However, we do expect the federal agencies in our airport to provide fair and respectful treatment of detainees that follow legal and policy requirements. Prolonged detention without appropriate process not only raises serious concerns—it undermines public trust. As commissioners, we are committed to pursue every available action to ensure that SEA Airport remains a place that upholds dignity, justice, and transparency.”^{[144], [145]}

Because of limited data available to date, UWCHR has not been able to track the destinations of all Washingtonians deported through Sea-Tac, but we note with concern the March 29 transport of a Salvadoran national via Sea-Tac to his eventual disappearance in Guantánamo Bay (described above), as well as multiple deportations via Sea-Tac of Mauritanians, Nepalis, Indians, and people of other nationalities under expedited removal (in other words, without access to courts) despite in many cases having expressed fear of torture upon their return. We anticipate receiving more information about these deportations in the coming weeks.

Private companies

Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, private companies are obligated to take proactive steps to ensure they do not function as a link in the chain carrying out gross human rights abuses.^[146] The commentary intended to guide implementation of Article 1 of the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights recognizes that although states are the primary entities responsible for adhering to human rights law, “Transnational corporations and other business enterprises shall have the responsibility to use due diligence in ensuring that their activities do not contribute directly or indirectly to human [rights] abuses, and that they do not directly or indirectly benefit from abuses of which they were aware or ought to have been aware.”^[147] There is growing legal recognition of this fact, reflected in advances in corporate accountability for human rights crimes in the United States and Europe.^[148] For example, a civil case is currently proceeding in U.S. federal court against ICE contractor MVM, for its role in family separation under the first Trump administration.^[149]

Despite this, however, multiple companies operating in Washington state profit from ICE’s violation of human rights.

By far the most significant of these is the GEO Group, a publicly-traded for-profit business headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, which owns and operates the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma under contract with ICE, totaling approximately $700 million over ten years.^[150] UWCHR has documented multiple areas of long-standing human rights concerns at the Northwest Detention Center. In addition to running the detention center itself, GEO’s subsidiary GTI (GEO Transportation Inc) provides the buses which transport detained people between locations in our state, including taking them to Sea-Tac or Boeing Field for purposes of deportation.

At Boeing Field, Signature Aviation has been the sole FBO providing fuel and services for deportation flights since 2023; the company has also serviced ICE flights at at least 13 additional airports.^[151] Signature’s website asserts the company’s commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,^[152] yet in practice, its operations at Boeing Field have facilitated the enforced disappearance of at least ten people: the six Venezuelans whose March 8, 2025 flight out of King County was serviced by Signature, and who wound up brutally tortured while forcibly disappeared in El Salvador; and the four Central Americans who departed our state on flights serviced by Signature on March 3; May 6; and May 29, en route to Guantánamo Bay.

In 2021, Signature Aviation was acquired by three investment firms,^[153] two of which have close ties to Washington state. Cascade Investments, L.L.C., doing business as Cascade Asset Management Company, is controlled by Bill Gates and owns 30% of Signature. The company’s other owners are Blackstone Private Equity, a component of Blackstone Inc. (Blackstone), and Global Infrastructure Management, doing business as Global Infrastructure Partners, which was acquired by BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock) in 2024.^[154] The Washington State Investment Board (WSIB), the state entity that invests retirement dollars of public workers, including schoolteachers, law enforcement, and employees of public universities, has chosen to invest these workers’ money in Global Infrastructure Partners, Blackstone, and Blackrock.^[155],[156] Indeed, in a May 15, 2025, meeting with UWCHR Director Angelina Godoy, senior WSIB leaders indicated that as Washington state invests a larger share of its employee resources in private equity than most other states, Washington’s decision to invest is often viewed as a seal of approval by other investors. WSIB investments also include publicly-traded private prison companies such as GEO Group.^[157]

This means that in Washington, our most famous philanthropist grows his investments in part by supporting a company complicit in gross human rights abuses, potentially ascending to the level of crimes against humanity—and public workers’ retirements are being financed in part through investments in organizations that profit from the detention and deportation of our neighbors.

Conclusion

Despite being normalized in the contemporary U.S. context, many longstanding practices of U.S. immigration enforcement violate international human rights standards. In large part, it has been due to our collective tolerance of rampant secrecy and due process failures in the immigration enforcement process that even more serious rights violations have now taken root. Enforced disappearances do not happen under governments that ensure reliable reporting about who state agents take into custody, when, and why; they do not take place in countries where everyone in government custody has access to lawyers, loved ones, and communications with the outside world. For a long time, under Democratic and Republican leadership alike, the executive branch of the U.S. federal government has denied these rights to people in immigration proceedings; and with bipartisan support, Congress has not only tolerated such practices, but indeed encouraged them, passing increasingly draconian laws permitting, and in some cases requiring, ever deeper deprivations of liberty for those caught up in our immigration enforcement system. Now, the executive branch has made the wholesale denial of immigrant rights a national priority, plowing ever larger numbers of people into the path of harm in outright defiance of the few remaining legal precautions that have, in the past, offered some relief for some people.

As a result, we are now seeing abuses of such gravity that they constitute gross human rights violations. Under international law, when practiced systematically against civilians, enforced disappearances are considered crimes against humanity. The prohibition on such practices is universal; it does not apply only in contexts where certain treaties have been ratified. This report documents the occurrence of such crimes in our state, facilitated by our public and private institutions; and it calls on all of us, as Washingtonians, to take action to stop these abuses from happening on our watch.

Notes

^[1] We are aware of other cases which may additionally qualify as forced disappearances, such as the prolonged detention of Max Londonio and Dante Rivera at Sea-Tac airport (see below), but focus in this report on a limited subset of cases we have been able to corroborate through the use of multiple sources. Because of the secrecy surrounding immigration detention, it is likely other cases have escaped detection.

^[2] See Judge James E. Boasberg’s April 16, 2025 opinion here: J.G.G. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., District of Columbia, Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/88a8e86fe0c23489/667d455e-full.pdf.

^[3] This practice has been challenged in federal court. See Luna Gutierrez and Lopez Ocon v. Noem, District of Columbia, Case 1:25-cv-01766: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/06/Complaint-Luna-Gutierrez-v.-Noem-1.pdf.

^[4] This case, D.V.D. v. DHS in federal district court in Massachusetts, is summarized here: National Immigration Litigation Alliance, “NILA’s Affirmative Litigation Docket”, undated, accessed August 7, 2025: https://immigrationlitigation.org/impact-litigation/.

^[5] Revised Code of Washington § 28B.20.478. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.20.478

^[6] University of Washington Center for Human Rights, “Paths to Compliance: The Effort to Protect Immigrant Rights in Washington State”, August 1, 2024. https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2024/08/01/paths-to-compliance-the-effort-to-protect-immigrant-rights-in-washington-state/

^[7] Human rights scholars Steiner and Alston explain, “A violation is gross if it is particularly shocking because of the importance of the rights or the gravity of the violation,” Steiner, H. & Alston, P., (1996). International Human Rights in Context, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 145-147. U.S. law also notes, in section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, “the term ‘gross violation of internationally recognized human rights’ includes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person.”  Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 § 502B. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-1071.pdf

^[8] See for example, this study by the UN Working Group of Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, showing that the principle has attained jus cogens status. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/51/31/Add.3

^[9] On the challenges of interpreting these various identifiers of severity, see Roger-Claude Liwanga,
“The Meaning of Gross Violation of Human Rights: A Focus on International Tribunals’ Decisions over the DRC Conflicts”, 44 Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 67 (2015). https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp/vol44/

iss1/6

^[10] For this reason, Holocaust scholar Scott Straus warns, “Confusion often reigns in the early stages of the onset of mass atrocity. Analysts may know that the risk of genocide and mass atrocity is high…[b]ut the specific picture of what is happening on the ground often is blurry. Journalists and human rights defenders often are restricted…The authorities may shut down or restrict communication networks. To be sure, in the information age, controlling information is increasingly difficult. …Nonetheless, as word of violence begins to emerge, domestic and international observers may search for evidence that a policy of large-scale, systematic violence against civilian populations is under way.” Scott Straus, Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2016, p. 88: https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Fundamentals-of-Genocide-and-Mass-Atrocity-Prevention.pdf

^[11] This term is sometimes referred to in English as “peremptory norms.”

^[12] These concepts are referred to in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties from 1969, which reads: “A peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.” See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 53, p. 18: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

^[13] For a thorough discussion of non-refoulement as a jus cogens norm, see Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), “Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol”, January 1, 2011: https://www.unhcr.org/media/advisory-opinion-extraterritorial-application-non-refoulement-obligations-under-1951-0

^[14] See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law”, undated: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNon-RefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdf

^[15] The Refugee Convention does allow exceptions for individuals who represent a danger for the national security of the State in question or who, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitute a danger to the community of that country”, but requires that in such cases, the determination be reached via due process of law, adhering to strict standards of evidence and opportunities for contestation of that evidence by the affected parties. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), “The 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, Article 33, p. 32: https://www.unhcr.org/media/1951-refugee-convention-and-1967-protocol-relating-status-refugees

^[16] United States Congress, Public Law 96-212, 96th Congress, “Refugee Act of 1980”: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf

^[17] See FARRA Section 2242(a), “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” United States Congress, H.R. 1757, 105th Congress, ‘‘Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998’’: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-105hr1757enr/pdf/BILLS-105hr1757enr.pdf

^[18] For an instructive discussion of U.S. implementation of CAT, see Trent Buatte, “The Convention Against Torture and Non-Refoulement in U.S. Courts,” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol. 35, July 2021, pp. 701-747: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/07/01-Buatte-GT-GILJ210041.pdf

^[19] This is known as indirect or “chain” refoulement. See European Asylum Support Office, “Judicial analysis: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement”, 2018, p. 28: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/asylum-procedures-ja_en.pdf

^[20] Ariel E. Dulitzky, “The Latin-American Flavor of Enforced Disappearances”, Chicago Journal of International Law, 2019, Vol. 19: No. 2, Article 3: https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/latin-american-flavor-enforced-disappearances

^[21] General Assembly of the United Nations, “International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance”, 20 December 2006: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-all-persons-enforced

^[22] The precise language in the convention is: “‘Enforced disappearance’ is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.” See United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance”, 2006, Article 2: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-all-persons-enforced. Also note, some other international human rights instruments and organizations—for example, the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court—use slightly different definitions of this crime. There have been differences of interpretation, for example, how long a person must be held outside the protection of the law, or under what conditions a kidnapping by a non-state party should “count” as an enforced disappearance. On this point, see United Nations, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 71st session: https://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/71/pdfs/english/cah_un_wg_disappearances.pdf

^[23] The UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances and UN Working Group on Enforced or

Involuntary Disappearances make this clear in a joint October 2024 statement. United Nations, Committee on Enforced Disappearances, “Joint statement on so-called ‘short-term enforced Disappearances’”, October 2024: https://docs.un.org/en/CED/C/11.

^[24] See section II, paragraph 7, U.N., Committee on Enforced Disappearances, “Joint statement on so-called ‘short-term enforced Disappearances’”, October 2024, p. 3: https://docs.un.org/en/CED/C/11.

^[25] United Nations, “International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance”, Article 17: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-all-persons-enforced

^[26] On this point, see United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Disappearances on the move”, 9 July 2025: https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2025/07/disappearances-move.

^[27] For example, at least two cases currently before international human rights bodies posit that European countries’ “pushbacks” of migrants to third countries may constitute forms of forced disappearances. See  de:border Collective “F.A.A. v Greece: Illegal expulsions and enforced disappearance at Evros”, November 2020, https://debordercollective.org/interventions/pushbacks-as-enforced-disappearances/faa-greece-hrcttee/; and European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, “Pushbacks in Croatia: Complaint before the UN Human Rights Committee”, 11 December 2020, https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/push-backs-croatia-complaint-un-human-rights-council/.

^[28] United Nations, “International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance”, Article 9: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-all-persons-enforced

^[29] See Section H, paras. 20-21 in UN Human Rights Council, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance, “Methods of work of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances,” September 28, 2023, available here: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/WGEID/1,

^[30] See, for example, Al Otro Lado et al. “Information Submitted to the IACHR Rapporteurship on Human Mobility,” May 2025, https://refugeerights.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/English-Written-statement-for-IACHR-Rapporteurship-on-Human-Mobility_May-6-2025.pdf; Americans for Immigrant Justice et al. “Short-Term Disappearances of Migrants and Asylum Seekers in the United States,” submission to the United Nations Working Group on Forced Disappearances, February 2024, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/cfis/short-term-disap/submission-short-term-ED-CED-WGEID-cso-usmigrants-en.pdf; Human Rights First and Refugees International, “This is an Order from Trump: Abuse, Expulsions, and Refoulement of People Seeking Asylum”, May 2025, https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/this-is-an-order-from-trump-abuse-expulsions-and-refoulement-of-people-seeking-asylum/; Human Rights First, “The US Government is Forcibly Disappearing Migrants,” May 2025, https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/the-u-s-government-is-forcibly-disappearing-migrants/; Human Rights Watch, “US: Border Leads to Death, Disappearances”, June 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/26/us-border-deterrence-leads-deaths-disappearances. See also Diego F. Leal and Natalie L. Cadwalader, “Enforced Disappearance as a Border Management Tool: The Case of Border Patrol Detentions of Immigrant and Asylum-Seeking Families in the United States,” Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, December 1, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1177/23315024241296839.

^[31] See Migration Policy Institute, “In First 100 Days, Trump 2.0 Has Dramatically Reshaped the U.S. Immigration System, but Is Not Meeting Mass Deportation Aims”, 24 April 2025: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-2-immigration-first-100-days.

^[32] ICE records are essential for understanding practices of detention and deportation, given that the agency is the only entity which possesses such data about its own practices; yet the agency is known for its publication of unreliable data, a problem augmented by its lack of transparency. The problem is not new (see, for example, United States Government Accountability Office, “IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: Arrests, Removals, and Detentions Varied Over Time and ICE Should Strengthen Data Reporting”, GAO-24-106233, July 2024, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106233.pdf) but it appears to have gotten worse in 2025. Multiple researchers have raised serious concerns about the reliability of data released by ICE in recent months, and our own in-depth analysis of the data cited here underscores their concerns. See, for example, a statement by the Deportation Data Project, “ICE data release: Sep. 2023 to late Jun. 2025”, 15 July 2025, https://deportationdata.org/news/2025-07-15-ICE-release.html; the concerns expressed by Prof. Austin Kocher (Kocher, “How to make sense of ICE arrest data”, The Journalist’s Resource, 30 June 2025, https://journalistsresource.org/home/how-to-make-sense-of-ice-arrest-data/; and Kocher, “New Tool: DetentionReports.com Provides Valuable Updated Data about ICE Facilities”, Substack, 28 July 2025, https://austinkocher.substack.com/p/new-tool-detentionreportscom-provides); and reporting on the unreliability of ICE data (see Joel Rose, “ICE is making more arrests, but critics say some claims don’t add up”, NPR, 1 March 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5313059/immigration-ice-arrests-misleading-claims-kristi-noem-dhs; and Will Craft, “Misleading Ice data ‘laying groundwork’ for mass deportations, advocates say”, The Guardian, 12 February 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/12/trump-ice-deportation-data). Despite these concerns, we report numbers drawn from ICE data here because it represents the only U.S. government record of the detention/deportation apparatus.

^[33] Datasets obtained via FOIA by the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and published by the Deportation Data Project in late June, 2025: https://deportationdata.org/data/ice.html

^[34] ICE’s Seattle Area of Responsibility includes Washington state, Oregon, and Alaska.

^[35] This facility is also known as the Northwest ICE Processing Center.

^[36] For example, federal officials’ sworn statements in response to “mistaken” deportations show that the deportation process is typically driven by decision making at the Field Office who controls the detainee’s “docket,” not at the staging facility level. See, for example, a letter submitted by federal authorities in the case of Jordin Alexander Melgar-Salmeron, deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order in May 2025: although he had been physically relocated to a staging facility in Louisiana, the ICE field office in Buffalo, NY retained “administrative responsibility” (also described in the letter as “docket control”) for Mr. Melgar. Craig D. Lee to Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, “Re: Melgar-Salmeron v. Bondi, No. 23-7792 (2d Cir.)”, 27 May 2025: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/a1487cf7641993de/0c230f5d-full.pdf.  This is also reflected in ICE records released under FOIA, which show that ICE designates removals as occurring from the Seattle Area of Responsibility even though the flights or buses which transport the individuals in question out of U.S. territory depart from physical locations physically outside Washington. Similarly, ICE administrative data obtained categorizes removals by “Docket AOR”, showing that removals categorized as belonging to the Seattle AOR docket often have points of departure outside the state of Washington. See Deportation Data Project, “ICE data documentation”, undated, accessed 7 August 2025: https://deportationdata.org/docs/ice.html.

^[37] DHS signed a contract with CSI in March 2025, and additional possible contracts remain in the offing. Nick Schwellenbach, “Meet the ICE Contractor Running Deportation Flights”, Project on Government Oversight, 20 March 2025: https://www.pogo.org/investigations/meet-the-ice-contractor-running-deportation-flights

^[38] It is not publicly known why this path is chosen for some individuals while others depart on charter aircraft.

^[39] See, for example, Zach Wichter, “What airlines operate deportation flights? What travelers need to know”, USA Today, 8 April 2025: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/04/08/what-is-a-deportation-flight/82989406007/ and Patricia Mazzei, “Florida Is Buying Plane Tickets for Unauthorized Immigrants to Self-Deport”, The New York Times, 1 August 2025: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/01/us/florida-immigration-self-deport-flights.html

^[40] Also, in rare cases, people from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Peru were put on commercial flights despite the existence of regular ICE Air charter flights to those countries.

^[41] See University of Washington Center for Human Rights, “Hidden in Plain Sight: ICE Air and the Machinery of Mass Deportation”, 23 April 2019: https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/publication/hidden-in-plain-sight-ice-air-and-the-machinery-of-mass-deportation/

^[42] See ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, “ICE Air Operations Handbook”, ERO 11500.1, 20 February 2025, p. 17: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/iceAirOpsHandbookEd2_02202024.pdf. An exception is made for those who are pregnant or in postpartum recovery.

^[43] On the use of the WRAP, see Osei Owusu Amankwaah and Justin Wm. Moyer, “Asylum seekers faced severe abuse in ICE detention under Trump, suit says”, The Washington Post, 2 January 2024: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/02/ice-asylum-seekers-cameroon-trump-wrap/

^[44] For example, on October 17, 2023, community observers at Boeing Field noted that it appeared a person restrained into a bundle, or a large, heavy object was carried by 4-5 officers into the passenger area of the plane (not the luggage hold); recorded video of the event confirmed this impression, but offered no further clarity on whether it was a person or object. ICE records obtained by UWCHR show that that same day, a man from China physically resisted being put on the bus at the detention center to take him to the airport for deportation purposes, and that agents subjected him to a use of force, but this does not prove that what observers witnessed at the airport was the same man.

^[45] UWCHR has interviewed one person after their deportation on commercial aircraft, who described being escorted by ICE officers who, apparently in an act of compassion, chose to remove his restraints midflight.

^[46] The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as codified in INA § 235(b)(1), creates a process called expedited removal, under which ICE can summarily remove noncitizens arriving at a port of entry “without further hearing or review” if they are deemed inadmissible, and further allows to extend application of expedited removal to “certain other aliens” if they (1) were not admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities and (2) cannot establish at least two years’ continuous physical presence in the United States at the time of apprehension. See Hillel R. Smith, “Expedited Removal of Aliens: An Introduction”, Congressional Research Service, 25 March 2022: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11357. In addition, two other categories—administrative removal and reinstatement of removal—also allow deportation without judicial process.

^[47] Under international human rights standards, countries are allowed to deport people, but removal orders “should only be issued following consideration of individual circumstances with adequate justification in accordance with the law and international human rights standards, inter alia the prohibition of arbitrary or collective expulsions and the principle of non–refoulement.” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Recommended Principles and Guidelines for Human Rights at International Borders”, 2014, p. 37: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/OHCHR_Recommended_Principles_Guidelines.pdf

^[48] According to legal scholar Daniel Kanstroom, this use of expedited removal “raises major due process concerns because arrest, detention, being placed in expedited removal, and ultimately removal with a five-year ban on return, are all in the hands of executive agents. In asylum cases, an immigration judge may be involved but even then federal review is essentially precluded. In most cases, a person subject to expedited removal is detained, has no right to counsel, often has no time to communicate with her family members or to seek legal counsel and has no right to appeal.” Daniel Kanstroom, “Expedited Removal and Due Process: ‘A Testing Crucible of Basic Principle’ in the Time of Trump”, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol 75, Iss. 3, 2018, p. 1323: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol75/iss3/5

^[49] See, for example, this Executive Order expanding Expedited Removal: White House, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion”, 20 January, 2025: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/

^[50] These include large numbers of people who entered the country lawfully because they were granted temporary parole at the border, thus permitting them to be present while their applications for asylum or Temporary Protected Status were being processed.

^[51] Figures related to ICE removals should be considered approximate due to reported issues with data released by ICE via FOIA; for the same reason, we lack reliable data on removals prior to January 1, 2025. See Deportation Data Project, “ICE data release: Sep. 2023 to late Jun. 2025”, 15 July 2025: https://deportationdata.org/news/2025-07-15-ICE-release.html

^[52] The U.S. federal government has claimed to have such guarantees in the form of diplomatic assurances, but as private promises made to the very government committing the violation of migrants’ rights, such assertions are clearly insufficient. (See Declaration of Robert L. Cerna, J.G.G., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 17 March 2025: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.26.1_7.pdf) Furthermore, the “Lyons memo” reportedly plans deportations even without diplomatic assurances. (See Maria Sacchetti, Carol D. Leonnig and Marianne LeVine, “ICE memo outlines plan to deport migrants to countries where they are not citizens,” The Washington Post, 12 July 2025: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/07/12/immigrants-deportations-trump-ice-memo/)

^[53] Multiple U.S. policies and practices, such as the process of metering (Human RIghts Watch, “‘We Couldn’t Wait’: Digital Metering at the US-Mexico Border”, 1 May 2024:  https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/05/01/we-couldnt-wait/digital-metering-us-mexico-border), the Migrant Protection Protocols (Physicians for Human Rights, “Forced into Danger: Human Rights Violations Resulting from the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols”, 19 January 2021: https://phr.org/our-work/resources/forced-into-danger/), the June 2024 Presidential Proclamation (later the Securing the Border Final Rule, see American Immigration Council, “An American Immigration Council Analysis of the President’s 212(f) Proclamation and Interim Final Rule Restricting Asylum”, 5 June 2024: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/american-immigration-council-analysis-presidents-212f-proclamation-and-interim-final-rule/), and others have dramatically eroded the right to seek asylum in recent years under Democratic and Republican leadership alike. However, since January 2025 a combination of executive orders (see White House, “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”, 20 January 2025: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/guaranteeing-the-states-protection-against-invasion/;  and White House, “Securing our Borders”, 20 January 2025: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/securing-our-borders/) have effectively ended asylum at the U.S. southern border, in violation of international and U.S. law.

^[54] For the decision, which is one paragraph long; along with the much longer dissent led by Justice Sotomayor, see: Supreme Court of the United States, Department Of Homeland Security, et al. v.

D.V.D., et al, U.S. 606, No. 24A115, 23 June 2025: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf

^[55] For example, respect for the rights of migrants in the contemporary United States is so weak that in some cases, migrants are arguably being refouled when they are pushed back by Canadian border authorities into Washington state, where they are routinely detained under conditions that violate international law and where in at least case known to UWCHR, a family of asylum-seekers were forcibly disappeared for weeks in Blaine, Washington.

^[56] Human Rights Watch, “US/El Salvador: Venezuelan Deportees Forcibly Disappeared”, 11 April 2025: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/11/us/el-salvador-venezuelan-deportees-forcibly-disappeared

^[57] Amnesty International, “The human cost of the repressive cooperation between the US and El Salvador”, 15 April 2025: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/la-cooperacion-represiva-entre-eeuu-y-el-salvador/

^[58] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “UN experts alarmed at illegal deportations from the United States to El Salvador”, 30 April 2025: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/un-experts-alarmed-illegal-deportations-united-states-el-salvador

^[59] Jazmine Ulloa, “‘I Want to Clear My Name’: Deported Migrant Takes First Step to Sue the U.S.”, The New York Times, 24 July 2025: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/us/venezuelan-migrant-us-wrongful-detention.html

^[60] El País reports, on the basis of an interview with a single Venezuelan man who was in CECOT, that from his location within the prison he was able to see the light of day; this contrasts with the version of other detainees. Carla Gloria Colomé, “El músico venezolano Arturo Suárez-Trejo, preso en la cárcel de Bukele, vuelve a casa: ‘Nos dijeron que el mundo se había olvidado de nosotros’”, El País, 26 July 2025: https://elpais.com/us/migracion/2025-07-26/el-musico-venezolano-arturo-suarez-trejo-preso-en-la-carcel-de-bukele-vuelve-a-casa-nos-dijeron-que-el-mundo-se-habia-olvidado-de-nosotros.html

^[61] See Sergio Martínez-Beltrán, “Venezuelan deported to El Salvador mega-prison describes brutal abuse”, NPR, 28 July 2025: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5479208/venezuelan-deported-to-el-salvador-mega-prison-describes-brutal-abuse;  Sergio Martínez-Beltrán, Manuel Rueda, “’Hell on Earth’: Venezuelans deported to El Salvador mega-prison tell of brutal abuse”, NPR, 27 July 2025:

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/27/nx-s1-5479143/hell-on-earth-venezuelans-deported-to-el-salvador-mega-prison-tell-of-brutal-abuse; and https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/30/venezuelan-men-cecot-trump-salvadoran-prison-abuse/

^[62] Samantha Schmidt et al., “‘Welcome to hell’: Inside the megaprison where the U.S. deported migrants”, The Washington Post, 31 July 2025: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/31/venezuelans-deported-us-el-salvador-prison-cecot-2/

^[63] See El País, 26 July 2025, op. cit.; and The Washington Post, 31 July 2025, op. cit.

^[64] Edicson David Quintero Chacón, v. Warden, Stewart Detention Center, et al., Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Columbus Division, Case 4:25-cv-00050-CDL-AGH, 25 July 2025: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Notice-of-Voluntary-Dismissal-0725.pdf

^[65] Diario La Nación, “Wladimir Vera, un metalúrgico oriundo de El Diamante, Táriba, Venezuela, partió hacia Estados Unidos en búsqueda de un futuro mejor…”, Facebook post, 25 March 2025:  https://www.facebook.com/lanacionweb/videos/1026604178853958/

^[66] ICE detention data shows that he was on the non-detained docket, but was booked into the hold room on January 26, and then transferred the same day to the Tacoma facility. This is a pattern typical of those arrested at check-ins.

^[67] The Latin American Post Staff, “Venezuelan Families Confront US-Salvadoran Prison Transfer Silence”, The Latin American Post, 21 March 2025:  https://latinamericanpost.com/americas/venezuelan-families-confront-us-salvadoran-prison-transfer-silence/

^[68] This flight is listed on King County’s website: King County, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Flights”, accessed 11 August 2025: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/executive-services/transit-transportation-roads/airport/about/ice-flights

^[69]  See ProPublica’s database of information about the Venezuelan men disappeared in El Salvador, which includes profiles of all seven individuals listed here: ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, Alianza Rebelde Investiga and Cazadores de Fake News, “The Men Trump Deported to a Salvadoran Prison”, 23 July 2025: https://projects.propublica.org/venezuelan-immigrants-trump-deported-cecot/

^[70] Ibid.

^[71] ICE records show he was initially booked into the Las Vegas hold room; his mother also reportedly told ProPublica (ibid.) that he was detained at a check-in.

^[72] King County, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Flights”, op. cit.

^[73] We believe this man had ties to Washington, because ICE records indicate he was a member of the “Seattle non-detained docket,” and that he had been previously arrested by ICE and released on supervision here. Also, the details of his story described by RFK Human Rights match up with ICE records; they note that upon entering the United States lawfully in April 2023, he moved to Washington with his family and worked as a delivery driver while his immigration case proceeded through the courts. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, “Challenging Unlawful Deportations: Our Clients’ Stories”, accessed 11 August 2025: https://rfkhumanrights.org/our-impact/justice/international-justice/rfk-human-rights-el-salvador-delegation-to-investigate-trumps-unlawful-deportations/challenging-unlawful-deportations-our-clients-stories/#kenlyn

^[74] See United Strength for Action, “SAY HIS NAME: Kenlyn Rafael Rodríguez Rojas”, Facebook post, 10 May 2025: https://www.facebook.com/61573726410895/posts/-say-his-name-kenlyn-rafael-rodr%C3%ADguez-rojas-kenlyn-rafael-rodr%C3%ADguez-rojas-is-a-3/122128260248790880/

^[75] Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, “Challenging Unlawful Deportations: Our Clients’ Stories”, op. cit.

^[76] Michael Rios, Ivonne Valdés and Marlon Sorto, “Venezuela says it will investigate El Salvador officials over alleged abuse of Cecot detainees deported from US”, CNN, 21 July 2025: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/americas/venezuela-investigation-el-salvador-alleged-abuse-cecot-intl-latam

^[77] On this, see Human Rights Watch, “Punished for Seeking Change: Killings, Enforced Disappearances and Arbitrary Detention Following Venezuela’s 2024 Election”, 30 April 2025: https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/04/30/punished-seeking-change/killings-enforced-disappearances-and-arbitrary-detention

^[78] American Immigration Council, “After Detaining People in El Salvador Torture Prison for 125 Days, the U.S. Government Must Be Held Accountable for Disappearing Migrants”, 18 July 2025: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/press-release/people-detained-el-salvador-cecot-trump-accountable/

^[79] According to ICE data, 32 Venezuelans were sent from Washington to Mexico; four were sent to Colombia, two to Canada, and one each to El Salvador, Honduras, Kenya and Trinidad and Tobago. However, detailed analysis of cases of Venezuelans with connections to Washington state who were expelled to El Salvador in March 2025 shows that ICE’s accounting of “departure country” is likely inaccurate, with multiple Venezuelans expelled to El Salvador erroneously categorized as having been removed to Venezuela.

^[80] See, for example, Super Familia, “Stop Brayan’s transfer to El Salvador’s Mega-prison”, Action Network post, accessed 11 August 2025: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/free-brayan; UWCHR researchers spoke directly to others who had experienced similar threats.

^[81] Luke Garrett, “U.S. deports hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador, despite court order”, NPR, 16 March 2025: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/16/g-s1-54154/alien-enemies-el-salvador-trump

^[82] Nayib Bukele, “Last night, in a joint military operation with our allies from the United States, we transferred 17 extremely dangerous criminals linked to Tren de Aragua and MS-13. […]”, X post (@nayibbukele), 31 March 2025: https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1906703745158660177

^[83] National Immigration Law Center, “Flights to Torture: Tracking the CECOT Disappearances”, 24 June 2025: https://www.nilc.org/resources/tracking-the-cecot-disappearances/

^[84] Marco Rubio, “Last night, another 10 criminals from the MS-13 and Tren de Aragua Foreign Terrorist Organizations arrived in El Salvador. […]”, X post (@SecRubio), 13 April 2025:  https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1911430462305694170

^[85] National Immigration Law Center, “Flights to Torture: Tracking the CECOT Disappearances”, op. cit.

^[86] Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, “Coalition Demands Action as New Evidence Reveals Abuses of Migrants in El Salvador’s CECOT Prison”, 1 August 2025: https://cgrs.uclawsf.edu/news/coalition-demands-action-new-evidence-reveals-abuses-migrants-el-salvadors-cecot-prison

^[87] This is the case, for example, of Salvadoran human rights defender Ruth López, who has been imprisoned by the Bukele regime since May; throughout this time, her family and lawyers have had only occasional information as to her whereabouts or well-being. Amnesty International has declared Ms. López and two other human rights defenders to be prisoners of conscience (Amnesty International, “El Salvador: Amnesty International declares Ruth Eleonora López, Alejandro Henríquez and José Ángel Pérez prisoners of conscience amid increasing repression”, 1 July 2025: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2025/07/el-salvador-amnistia-internacional-declara-presos-de-conciencia/), and other organizations have declared her detention to be a forced disappearance (Federación Internacional por los Derechos Humanos, “El Salvador: Detención arbitraria y desaparición forzada de Ruth López de Cristosal”, 23 May 2025: https://www.fidh.org/es/temas/defensores-de-derechos-humanos/el-salvador-detencion-arbitraria-y-desaparicion-forzada-de-ruth-lopez).

^[88] Human Rights Watch, “Human Rights Watch declaration on prison conditions in El Salvador for the J.G.G. v. Trump case,” 20 March 2025: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/20/human-rights-watch-declaration-prison-conditions-el-salvador-jgg-v-trump-case

^[89] Ibid.

^[90] Salvadoran human rights defender Fidel Zavala, for example, who was released from Mariona Prison in 2023, subsequently accused the authorities of widespread torture, denial of access to medical care, and even extrajudicial executions; he reportedly saw dozens of bodies removed in black bags. In 2025, Zavala was re-arrested in what appears to be an act of retaliation for his having spoken out; Amnesty International believes “his life and personal integrity [are] at imminent risk.” See Amnesty International, “

El Salvador: Fidel Zavala, human rights defender, at risk of torture and other ill-treatment”, 8 April 2025: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/el-salvador-fidel-zavala-at-risk-of-torture-and-other-ill-treatment/; and Carlos Martínez, “Detienen a activista que atestiguó tortura en cárceles y demandó a Osiris Luna”, El Faro, 26 February 2025:

https://elfaro.net/es/202502/el_salvador/27758/detienen-a-activista-que-atestiguo-tortura-en-carceles-y-demando-a-osiris-luna

^[91] Thanks to bilateral security cooperation and data-sharing agreements signed between the U.S. and El Salvador in 2019, U.S. immigration authorities and the Salvadoran National Police exchange extensive information on biometrics and criminal history of specific individuals, so it is probable that Salvadoran police are able to access information about all deportees’ reputed gang affiliations or criminality (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: DHS Agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador”, undated, accessed 11 August 2026: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_1028_opa_factsheet-northern-central-america-agreements_v2.pdf). Reporting on an April interview with Salvadoran Minister of Security and Justice Gustavo Villatoro, CNN wrote that “Salvadorans deported from the US who are placed directly into the country’s prison system are those with pending criminal records in El Salvador. Villatoro told CNN the Salvadoran government reviews each deportation flight arriving from the US and immediately checks the names of passengers against its gang database. ‘We checked all of them. And if we found someone who we are very sure that he is a member of any gang in El Salvador, we capture them and put them in jail,’ he said.” (David Culver, Abel Alvarado and Evelio Contreras, “El Salvador says it shares gang intel with the US — and requests specific deportees”, CNN, 9 April 2025: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/09/americas/el-salvador-shares-gang-intel-with-us-intl-latam).

^[92] Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et. al v. Kristi Noem, Department Of Homeland Security, Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, District of Columbia, Case 1:25-cv-00418, 12 February 2025: https://www.aclu.org/documents/gitmo-lawsuit-filing

^[93] Ibid.

^[94] Center for Constitutional Rights et al. v. United States Department of Defense et al., Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Southern District of New York, Case 1:25-cv-06214, 27 July 2025, p. 13: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2025/07/Dkt%201%20Complaint%20GTMO%20EO%20FOIA.pdf

^[95] Paul Roberts, “Seattle family says migrant held at Guantánamo Bay was fleeing gangs”, The Seattle Times, 16 February 2025: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-family-says-migrant-held-at-Guantánamo-bay-was-fleeing-gangs/

^[96] Ibid.

^[97] Per court documents obtained via PACER and reviewed by UWCHR.

^[98] Carol Rosenberg and Charlie Savage, “Here Are the Names of 53 Migrants Taken to Guantánamo Bay”, The New York Times, 12 February 2025: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/us/politics/gitmo-migrants-list.html

^[99] Gustavo Sagrero Álvarez, “29-year-old dad believed to be among immigrants sent to Guantanamo Bay”, KUOW, 17 February 2025: https://www.kuow.org/stories/29-year-old-dad-believed-to-be-among-immigrants-sent-to-Guantánamo-bay; and Seattle Times, 16 February 2025, op. cit.

^[100] See International Migrants Alliance Pacific North West, “JUSTICE FOR JOSÉ!”, Instagram post (@imapnw), 21 February 2025: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGWLid3Sn50/?hl=en. What’s more, there is reason to believe some Venezuelans may be subjected to abuse upon their return to Venezuela simply for having fled to the United States. UWCHR researchers spoke with one man who had been residing lawfully in Washington, but was deported to Venezuela in 2025. Upon his arrival, he was imprisoned and tortured as a “traitor to the fatherland,” (traidor a la patria) apparently as retaliation for his having migrated to the United States. His current whereabouts are unknown.

^[101] UWCHR is choosing not to publish the names of other individuals sent to Guantánamo out of respect for their privacy, because their names have not already been made public by other sources.

^[102] As noted above, White House sources told FOX News that a flight transported prisoners from Guantánamo Bay to El Salvador on March 31 (see Bill Melugin, “BREAKING: 17 illegal aliens with serious criminal histories were removed to El Salvador last night after being held at Guantanamo Bay […]”, X post (@BillMelugin_), 31 March 2025: https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1906719922522357963); it appears possible that this Washingtonian was on that flight, and hence that he would most likely be currently imprisoned in El Salvador, but it is impossible to confirm this given the lack of verifiable information.

^[103] We presume his departure was on a commercial flight because no ICE Air flights were observed departing Boeing Field that day, and because ICE records indicate he was first taken to the hold room in Tukwila, which is typically a step on the path to commercial departure via Sea-Tac.

^[104] Similar to the individual above, it appears possible that this man was on the flight that reportedly transported prisoners from Guantánamo Bay to El Salvador on March 31 (see Bill Melugin, X post, 31 March 2025, op.cit.); if so, it is also possible that he remains imprisoned under dire conditions in El Salvador, but it is impossible to confirm this given the lack of verifiable information.

 

^[105] We believe he was arrested by the Border Patrol because his record does not appear in ICE arrest data.

^[106] Flight data compiled by Tom Cartwright shows a Global X deportation flight from Guantanamo to Nicaragua; it is possible this person was on that flight.

^[107] Peter Talbot, “Tacoma man held in East Africa part of latest Trump fight over deportations”, The News Tribune, 7 June 2025: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article308072790.html

^[108] For reasons that are not clear to UWCHR researchers, docket control of Tuan Phan was transferred to the Dallas Area of Responsibility at this time.

^[109] Mattathias Schwartz, Abbie VanSickle, Hamed Aleaziz and Eric Schmitt, “How the Trump Administration Banished Eight Men to Legal Limbo in Africa”, The New York Times, 6 June 2025: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/06/us/trump-dhs-djibouti-deportees.html

^[110] Ibid.

^[111] Peter Talbot, The News Tribune, 7 June 2025, op. cit.

^[112] Gustavo Sagrero Álvarez, “A Pierce County man expected to be deported to Vietnam. Instead, ICE routed him to South Sudan”, KUOW, 29 May 2025: https://m.kuow.org/stories/pierce-county-man-expected-to-be-deported-to-vietnam-instead-ice-flew-him-to-south-sudan

^[113] 606 U. S., 2025: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf

^[114] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “8 Barbaric Criminal Illegal Aliens Finally Deported to South Sudan After Weeks of Delays by Activist Judges”, July 5, 2025: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/05/8-barbaric-criminal-illegal-aliens-finally-deported-south-sudan-after-weeks-delays

^[115] It is possible that other Washingtonians may also have been disappeared via deportation to third countries. Reports of third-country deportations to Eswatini, for example, have been surrounded with such secrecy that it is impossible to know whether any Washingtonians were sent there, and what conditions may have awaited them on arrival. ICE removal data is rife with errors about deportees’ final destinations; for example, records released under FOIA indicate that one Washingtonian was deported to North Korea. While this seems unlikely to be accurate, the fact that official government data about the final destination of deported Washingtonians is so unreliable underscores our concern that other cases of grave abuses may pass undetected in the current climate.

^[116] Troy Brynelson, “‘Like a jail cell’: Family of six detained at Washington state border facility for more than three weeks”, OPB, 28 May 2025: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/05/28/like-a-jail-cell-family-of-six-detained-at-washington-state-border-facility-for-more-than-three-weeks/

^[117] The family’s apprehension is reflected in a spreadsheet downloaded from Customs and Border Protection’s FOIA Reading Room on July 1, 2025: Customs and Border Protection, “USBP Nationwide Apprehensions April 2025”, 24 June 2025: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/usbp_nationwide_apprehensions_april_2025.xlsx. Alarmingly, although CBP data registers the apprehension of the family on April 26, the agency only notes the apprehension of the two adults and three children, ages 13, 10, and 5; there is no mention of the baby; the same data has also been released by the Deportation Data Project, also without note of the baby’s presence. Deportation Data Project, “Data > By Agency > Customs and Border Protection”, accessed 11 August 2025: https://deportationdata.org/data/cbp.html

^[118] Sujena Soumyanath, “Four U.S. citizen children detained in WA, Oregon lawmaker says”, The Seattle Times, 11 July 2025: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/four-u-s-citizen-children-detained-in-wa-oregon-rep-says/;  Jack Belcher and Hannah Edelman, “Congresswoman tracks down U.S. citizen children detained at Ferndale facility”, The Bellingham Herald, 12 July 2025: https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/politics-government/article310497985.html; Troy Brynelson, “Portland family detained at border facility for 2 weeks in apparent violation of immigration policy”, OPB, July 11, 2025: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/07/11/portland-family-detained-immigration-kenia-merlos/; Sujena Soumyanath, “Four U.S. citizen children detained by Border Patrol in WA released”, The Seattle Times, 17 July 2025: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/four-u-s-citizen-children-detained-by-border-patrol-in-wa-released/

^[119] The Bellingham Herald, 12 July 2025, op. cit.

^[120] Ibid.

^[121] K.J.M. v. Kristi Noem et al., Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Western District of Washington, 2:25-cv-01309-TL-SKV, 14 July, 2025.

^[122] Ibid.

^[123]  Rachel Schmidtke and Yael Schacher, “‘This is an Order from Trump:’ Abuse, Expulsions, and Refoulement of People Seeking Asylum”, Human Rights First and Refugees International, 8 May 2025: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/this-is-an-order-from-trump-abuse-expulsions-and-refoulement-of-people-seeking-asylum/

^[124] Those detained by CBP do sometimes appear in the ICE Detainee locator, though this is not always the case.

^[125] See Bryan L. Adkins, Alexander H. Pepper, Jay B. Sykes, “Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer”, Congressional Research Service, 18 May 2023: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45825

^[126] See Bunthay Cheam, “Community Group Demands Govenor Inslee End Cooperation With ICE” [sic], South Seattle Emerald, 22 June 2021: https://southseattleemerald.org/news/2021/06/22/community-group-demands-govenor-inslee-end-cooperation-with-ice

^[127] National Immigrant Justice Center, “Decriminalize Immigration,” undated, accessed 11 August 2025: https://immigrantjustice.org/issues/decriminalize-immigration

^[128] Gustavo Sagrero Álvarez, “Washington ‘sanctuary law’ allows ICE agents to pick up people leaving prison. They often don’t”, KUOW, 14 April 2025: https://www.kuow.org/stories/washington-sanctuary-law-immigration-customs-enforcement-detain-deportation

^[129] The document excerpted below refers to the arrested person as an “SI” or “supervised individual”; ICE arrests or deportations of people on community supervision are apparently tracked by DOC as part of its practice of monitoring supervised individuals’ compliance with the terms of their community custody.

^[130] ICE databases and other sources consulted by UWCHR include records noting the arrest, detention, and removal of an individual with personal characteristics coinciding with those of the individual identified in this case; the ICE data do not record a transfer to either of two detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay.

^[131] University of Washington Center for Human Rights, “Hidden in Plain Sight: ICE Air and the Machinery of Mass Deportation”, op. cit.

^[132] King County Executive, “Executive Constantine directs actions against ICE detainee flights from King County Airport”, 23 April 2019:  https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/executive/governance-leadership/king-county-executive/news/archive/2019/April/23-ICE-KCIA.aspx

^[133] David Gutman, “Federal judge allows ICE charter deportation flights to resume at Boeing Field”, The Seattle Times, 31 March 2023: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/federal-judge-allows-deportation-flights-to-resume-at-boeing-field/

^[134] See King County, “King County International Airport – Transparency on Use of Airport for Immigrant Deportations (supersedes and replaces PFC-7-1-EO”, PFC-7-1-1-EO, 31 March 2023: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/executive/constantine/news/documents/2023/pfc-7-1-eo_final.pdf

^[135] Ibid.

^[136] King County, “ICE Flights”, op. cit.: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/executive-services/transit-transportation-roads/airport/about/ice-flights

^[137] La Resistencia Flight Monitoring Report (May and June 2025), p. 8-9.

^[138] E-mail exchange between Modern Aviation employee and King County employee Sean Moran, “RE: Gate 22 Confirmation 6/1/25 – 6/13/25 for Modern Aviation”, dated 5 June 2025, obtained by UWCHR via public records request.

^[139] Because names are redacted on these Transportation Orders, it is not possible to know how many individuals were transported. Some of the Transportation Orders clearly refer to the transportation of a single individual, but more frequently they use the word “detainees” in the plural.

^[140] The Port of Seattle has told UWCHR that they were unaware of ICE’s use of SeaTac for deportations prior to UWCHR’s research, and they are not the authority which grants ICE access to the tarmac.

^[141] Carolyn Bick, “Two legal green card holders held in ‘black box’ of CBP custody at SeaTac Airport — Local officials not notified”, Northwest Asian Weekly, 21 May 2025: https://nwasianweekly.com/2025/05/two-legal-green-card-holders-held-in-black-box-of-cbp-custody-at-seatac-airport-local-officials-not-notified/

^[142] UWCHR is not privy to details of this detention, but it is possible it could constitute a forced disappearance as well.

^[143] Toshiko Grace Hasegawa, “Detention of a Lawful Permanent Resident at SEA Airport”, Port of Seattle, 21 May 2025: https://www.portseattle.org/commission-blog/20227/detention-lawful-permanent-resident-sea-airport

^[144] Spencer Pauley, “CBP says it follows rules amid concerns over extended holds at Seattle airport”, The Center Square, 28 May 2025: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_4f64ce59-f330-421e-af5b-5c1431092397.html

^[145] Port of Seattle Commissioners, “Port of Seattle Commission Statement on CBP Detention Practices at SEA”, Port of Seattle, 23 May 2025: https://www.portseattle.org/news/port-seattle-commission-statement-cbp-detention-practices-sea

^[146] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework”, United Nations Human Rights, 1 January 2012: https://www.ohchr.org/en/publications/reference-publications/guiding-principles-business-and-human-rights

^[147] Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights”, United Nations, 55th sess., 2003: http://digitallibrary.un.org/record/501576

^[148] For more on Europe’s adoption of the EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, see

Nicolas Bueno, Nadia Bernaz, Gabrielle Holly, and Olga Martin-Ortega. “The EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD): The Final Political Compromise.” Business and Human Rights Journal 9, no. 2 (2024), pp. 294–300: https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2024.10

^[149] Tom Lotshaw, “ICE Contractor Loses Immunity Bid In Family Separation Suit”, Law 360, 3 March 2025: https://www.law360.com/articles/2305395/ice-contractor-loses-immunity-bid-in-family-separation-suit-; Hausfeld LLP, “Federal Judge Allows Hausfeld’s Family Separation Suit Against ICE Contractor to Proceed”, 5 March 2025: https://www.hausfeld.com/news/federal-judge-allows-hausfeld-s-family-separation-suit-against-ice-contractor-to-proceed

^[150] See Nwauzor et al. v. The GEO Group, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 21-36024, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB, 2025, p. 7: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/16/21-36024.pdf

^[151] This estimate is derived from records of ICE Air flight schedules received by UWCHR under FOIA in 2019, such as this one identifying ICE’s providers of FBO services at many U.S.airports.

^[152] Signature Aviation, “Signature Aviation Ethics & Corporate Responsibility”, undated, accessed 11 August 2025: https://www.signatureaviation.com/about/policies-terms-and-conditions/signature-aviation-bba-aviation-disclosures/signature-aviation-ethics/

^[153] Curt Epstein, “Signature Aviation Now Under New Ownership”, AIN, 8 June 2021: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2021-06-08/signature-aviation-now-under-new-ownership

^[154] BlackRock, “BlackRock Completes Acquisition of Global Infrastructure Partners”, 1 October 2024 : https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/newsroom/press-releases/article/corporate-one/press-releases/blackrock-completes-acquisition-of-global-infrastructure-partners

^[155] Washington State Investment Board, “2024 Sustainability Report”, 2024, p. 27: https://sib.wa.gov/docs/reports/sustainability/2024.pdf

^[156] Washington State Investment Board, “Forty-Third Annual Report”, 2024, p. 14: https://www.sib.wa.gov/docs/reports/annual/ar24.pdf

^[157] Washington State Investment Board, “2024 Holdings Report”, 2024, p. 157: https://sib.wa.gov/docs/reports/annual/ho24.pdf