Washington, Feb 26 (NationPress) The effort by the Trump administration to expedite deportations to third countries faced a legal hurdle when a US appeals court declined to suspend a lower court's ruling that blocks the policy.

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, located in Boston, denied the government's urgent plea on Wednesday (local time) to lift a preliminary injunction that limits the deportation of specific migrants to nations other than their own.

“The emergency motion for a stay of the April 18 preliminary injunction pending appeal and for an immediate administrative stay is denied, as the government has not met the criteria for the relief requested,” stated the court.

The panel of three judges remarked that the administration did not fulfill the legal requirements needed to obtain a stay while the case progresses through the appeals process.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Nken v. Holder, the court emphasized that a party seeking a stay must “demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits” in its appeal and show irreparable damage, among other considerations.

This legal dispute revolves around the Department of Homeland Security's guidance issued on March 30 concerning third-country removals. Under this policy, US authorities aimed to deport particular migrants to countries willing to accept them, even if those nations are not their countries of origin.

In its ruling, the court raised concerns about “the ongoing enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security’s March 30 Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals.”

It also highlighted “the irreparable harm that could result from improper removals in this context,” indicating apprehension about the ramifications of deportations executed before comprehensive judicial review.

The judges instructed both parties to tackle crucial legal issues in their submissions. Among these is whether the class-wide injunction improperly “enjoins or restrains the operation of” specific provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Additionally, the court queried whether the relevant section of the Act “assumes the availability of individualized judicial review for individuals subject to third-country removals,” and thus does not preclude class-wide injunctive relief when such relief is warranted.

Moreover, the panel questioned whether the plaintiffs’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and due process are beyond the scope of that statutory provision.

The case, designated as D.V.D.; M.M.; E.F.D.; O.C.G. v. US Department of Homeland Security, lists DHS, Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and other officials as defendants.