Stateless Again: The Legal Limbo of Bhutanese Refugees deported from the US
May 11, 2025
min read
Introduction
In early 2025, Nepal found itself to be an unintended stage for a transnational human rights crisis, one which not only jeopardizes individual liberties but also raises skepticism on Nepal’s constitutional order and its standing in the global human rights community. The deportation of legally admitted refugees exposes a humanitarian crisis and the weakening of the principle of non-refoulement, precisely when statelessness comes to intersect with securitized migration regimes. This situation is a trilateral lapse- on the part of Bhutan, the U.S. and Nepal.
The Trilateral Failure: Caught in a lawless triangle
The ongoing deportation has revived the old horrors and made the legally resettled refugees question their belongingness. The US washed its hands of them, Bhutan refused to accept them, and Nepal, upon their arrival, detained them on the charge of illegally entering Nepal.1 This event highlights the failure of responsibility by all three nations. This makes the perfect triangle of constitutional evasion. Bhutan continues to disown these individuals under its ethno- nationalist citizenship law. The U.S. has deported them without giving them access to legal counsel and an interpreter when requested, undermining the basic principles of Justice. Nepal, meanwhile, has neither given them recognition as refugees nor charged them formally under Immigration Law, creating a de facto detention without legal basis.
Constitutional oversight of the legal Status of Refugee in Nepal
Nepal, despite not being a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, is still bound by customary international law and other human rights instrument that play an important role on the protection of refugee, the most significant of which are the Convention against Torture (CAT) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which Nepal is party to. Even in the absence of explicit provision or treaty obligation, a country is still bound by the Principle of non refoulement, a peremptory norm of international law- a jus cogens. The deportation of refugees where they may face persecution connotes the breach of most fundamental legal obligations. The ongoing detention of the Bhutanese Refugees has questioned the commitment of Nepal to uphold human rights.
The constitution of Nepal, like many others, enshrines rights using broad terms such as “every person” or “no one” in its provision. But the irony is that, in practice, the word is used as a synonym for “citizen.” The misinterpretation of such words often creates a legal vacuum. The failure of Nepal to either recognize these individuals as a refugee or as a person entitled to due process of law under Immigration Law is not just a humanitarian dilemma but a constitutional failure to uphold the fundamental right enshrined in the constitution of Nepal 2015.
Constitutional Responsibility of Nepal in the context of Statelessness
Statelessness can be regarded as a blind spot in the constitution. As earlier mentioned, the misinterpretation of terms such as “every person” or “no one” leaves the stateless individuals without any kind of rights and legal protection.
The Supreme Court of Nepal, in the case of Abdi Fahad Yusuf v. Department of Immigration,2 had prohibited the deportation of a Somali Refugee who had fled to Nepal due to Civil War in Somalia, invoking Nepal’s responsibility under convention against torture (CAT), and strengthening commitment of Nepal to the principle of non refoulement. Similarly, the supreme court of Nepal in the case of Lopsana Sherpa et al. v. District Administration Office, Kathmandu 3 has also affirmed that the right to liberty applies to all persons, not just citizens. This ruling establishes that statelessness does not allow a person to be stripped of Fundamental Rights.
The ongoing detention of the Bhutanese Refugees, who were legally admitted and resettled, reflects a downfall of Nepal’s constitutional commitment. These precedents are at risk of becoming dead letters if not applied to this crisis.
A transnational failure to protect Refugee
According to the report in The Wire, the use of India as a transit route in these deportations of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese Americans has raised serious questions. Activists argue that New Delhi now shares responsibility for the welfare of these individuals.4 The deportees not being questioned by Indian Authorities as they were transported through India to Bhutan-Nepal border raises the question on the Indian government’s role for their protection. The act of deportation of legally settled Bhutanese refugees left these individuals vulnerable to retribution in Bhutan, where they were denied legal recognition. Upon entering Nepal, they again once had to face a treatment where their belongingness was questioned. This sequence of events highlights how the countries have failed to provide a safe place for refugees.
Ethical and legal perspective of Deportation
Did the deportation of Bhutanese refugees by the U.S. in Bhutan, where they might face persecution, violate the principle of non-refoulement? The lack of transparency surrounding these deportations is concerning, especially with no public data tracking cases and families likely staying silent out of fear. This raises an urgent question: how many others have been quietly deported back to the countries they fled? The story of Purna Bahadur as reported in The Diplomat showcases the horror of being a refugee. Bhandari, a former refugee legally resettled in the U.S. and who has built his life there, faces deportation without clear communication, access to an interpreter and legal counsel. His deportation to Bhutan- a country which previously had exiled his whole family,
Refused to acknowledge him and left him with a warning to never return to Bhutan again. The 2025A.D case of Purna Bahadur demands a reassessment of deportation laws. 5
Conclusion: Reaffirm the Human Rights commitment
The crisis faced by Bhutanese Refugees is not an isolated event- it is a call for urgent reassessment and reform in how nations deal with their most vulnerable population. To protect human rights, there is an absolute need for a transnational legal response that prioritizes the right and dignity of all individuals over political or national interest. This tragic episode highlights the failure of the international community in refugee protection and is a powerful reminder that the protection of human rights must surpass borders.
.
In early 2025, Nepal found itself to be an unintended stage for a transnational human rights crisis, one which not only jeopardizes individual liberties but also raises skepticism on Nepal’s constitutional order and its standing in the global human rights community. The deportation of legally admitted refugees exposes a humanitarian crisis and the weakening of the principle of non-refoulement, precisely when statelessness comes to intersect with securitized migration regimes. This situation is a trilateral lapse- on the part of Bhutan, the U.S. and Nepal.
The Trilateral Failure: Caught in a lawless triangle
The ongoing deportation has revived the old horrors and made the legally resettled refugees question their belongingness. The US washed its hands of them, Bhutan refused to accept them, and Nepal, upon their arrival, detained them on the charge of illegally entering Nepal.1 This event highlights the failure of responsibility by all three nations. This makes the perfect triangle of constitutional evasion. Bhutan continues to disown these individuals under its ethno- nationalist citizenship law. The U.S. has deported them without giving them access to legal counsel and an interpreter when requested, undermining the basic principles of Justice. Nepal, meanwhile, has neither given them recognition as refugees nor charged them formally under Immigration Law, creating a de facto detention without legal basis.
Constitutional oversight of the legal Status of Refugee in Nepal
Nepal, despite not being a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, is still bound by customary international law and other human rights instrument that play an important role on the protection of refugee, the most significant of which are the Convention against Torture (CAT) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which Nepal is party to. Even in the absence of explicit provision or treaty obligation, a country is still bound by the Principle of non refoulement, a peremptory norm of international law- a jus cogens. The deportation of refugees where they may face persecution connotes the breach of most fundamental legal obligations. The ongoing detention of the Bhutanese Refugees has questioned the commitment of Nepal to uphold human rights.
The constitution of Nepal, like many others, enshrines rights using broad terms such as “every person” or “no one” in its provision. But the irony is that, in practice, the word is used as a synonym for “citizen.” The misinterpretation of such words often creates a legal vacuum. The failure of Nepal to either recognize these individuals as a refugee or as a person entitled to due process of law under Immigration Law is not just a humanitarian dilemma but a constitutional failure to uphold the fundamental right enshrined in the constitution of Nepal 2015.
Constitutional Responsibility of Nepal in the context of Statelessness
Statelessness can be regarded as a blind spot in the constitution. As earlier mentioned, the misinterpretation of terms such as “every person” or “no one” leaves the stateless individuals without any kind of rights and legal protection.
The Supreme Court of Nepal, in the case of Abdi Fahad Yusuf v. Department of Immigration,2 had prohibited the deportation of a Somali Refugee who had fled to Nepal due to Civil War in Somalia, invoking Nepal’s responsibility under convention against torture (CAT), and strengthening commitment of Nepal to the principle of non refoulement. Similarly, the supreme court of Nepal in the case of Lopsana Sherpa et al. v. District Administration Office, Kathmandu 3 has also affirmed that the right to liberty applies to all persons, not just citizens. This ruling establishes that statelessness does not allow a person to be stripped of Fundamental Rights.
The ongoing detention of the Bhutanese Refugees, who were legally admitted and resettled, reflects a downfall of Nepal’s constitutional commitment. These precedents are at risk of becoming dead letters if not applied to this crisis.
A transnational failure to protect Refugee
According to the report in The Wire, the use of India as a transit route in these deportations of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese Americans has raised serious questions. Activists argue that New Delhi now shares responsibility for the welfare of these individuals.4 The deportees not being questioned by Indian Authorities as they were transported through India to Bhutan-Nepal border raises the question on the Indian government’s role for their protection. The act of deportation of legally settled Bhutanese refugees left these individuals vulnerable to retribution in Bhutan, where they were denied legal recognition. Upon entering Nepal, they again once had to face a treatment where their belongingness was questioned. This sequence of events highlights how the countries have failed to provide a safe place for refugees.
Ethical and legal perspective of Deportation
Did the deportation of Bhutanese refugees by the U.S. in Bhutan, where they might face persecution, violate the principle of non-refoulement? The lack of transparency surrounding these deportations is concerning, especially with no public data tracking cases and families likely staying silent out of fear. This raises an urgent question: how many others have been quietly deported back to the countries they fled? The story of Purna Bahadur as reported in The Diplomat showcases the horror of being a refugee. Bhandari, a former refugee legally resettled in the U.S. and who has built his life there, faces deportation without clear communication, access to an interpreter and legal counsel. His deportation to Bhutan- a country which previously had exiled his whole family,
Refused to acknowledge him and left him with a warning to never return to Bhutan again. The 2025A.D case of Purna Bahadur demands a reassessment of deportation laws. 5
Conclusion: Reaffirm the Human Rights commitment
The crisis faced by Bhutanese Refugees is not an isolated event- it is a call for urgent reassessment and reform in how nations deal with their most vulnerable population. To protect human rights, there is an absolute need for a transnational legal response that prioritizes the right and dignity of all individuals over political or national interest. This tragic episode highlights the failure of the international community in refugee protection and is a powerful reminder that the protection of human rights must surpass borders.
.
References
[1]
Awaaz, N. (April 19, 2025). Bhutanese refugees deported from the US find themselves stateless once more. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2025/04/bhutanese-refugees-deported-from-the-us-find-themselves stateless-once-more/
[2]
Abdi Fahad Yusuf v. Department of Immigration et al, Supreme Court of Nepal, Decision No. 10503 (2020)
[3]
Lopsana Sherpa et al. v. District Administration Office, Kathmandu, Supreme Court of Nepal, Decision No. 8672 (2011)
[4]
Mitra, D. (2025, April 11). Caught Between Countries: The Plight of Bhutanese Refugees of Nepali Origin Post Deportation from US - The Wire. The Wire. https://thewire.in/world/caught-between-countries-the-plight-of bhutanese-refugees-of-nepali-origin-post-deportation-from-us
About the Authors
Sambriddhi Aryal
Undergraduate law student at Kathmandu School of Law, with a keen interest in human rights, refugee law, and international justice. Passionate about legal research and advocating for displaced and marginalized communities.
View all posts by Sambriddhi Aryal