Importance Score: 72 / 100 🔴
Statelessness Crisis Deepens for Bhutanese Refugees Deported from US
Statelessness Crisis Deepens for Bhutanese Refugees Deported from US: A Family’s Ordeal Unveiled. Three weeks prior, Narayan Kumar Subedi received a telephone call from his daughter residing in the United States, anticipating updates regarding his children’s lives overseas, possibly including arrangements for a long-anticipated meeting. However, he instead learned that his 36-year-old son, Ashish, a Bhutanese refugee who had been resettled in the U.S., faced deportation, plunging him into a renewed refugee crisis and statelessness.
Deportation and Detention of Bhutanese Refugees
Ashish’s situation stemmed from a domestic altercation that resulted in police intervention. Subsequently, after several days in custody without adequate legal assistance, he became entangled in the migration enforcement policies implemented during the Trump administration and was deported to Bhutan.
The Surreal Journey to Statelessness
The ensuing events unfolded in a bizarre manner, rendering Ashish and nine other Bhutanese refugees stateless. They found themselves abandoned by Bhutan, the nation they had initially escaped, expelled by the United States, where they had sought permanent residence, and subsequently detained by Nepal, where they had hoped to find refuge again.
Narayan was among approximately 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese individuals who fled Bhutan in the early 1990s to avoid persecution. For many, relocation abroad represented their sole prospect for a viable future. While Narayan’s children secured refugee status in the U.S., Narayan was deemed ineligible due to documentation discrepancies and remains in the Beldangi refugee camp in eastern Nepal.
Now, decades subsequently, his son has returned, yet he is neither accepted by Bhutan nor acknowledged in Nepal.
Nepal’s Role and Legal Limbo
Govinda Prasad Rijal, Director General of Immigration in Nepal, stated that four of the ten deported Bhutanese refugees, including Ashish, were apprehended for unlawful entry into Nepal through India.
“They were taken into custody from the refugee encampment on March 28 due to their entry into Nepal without legitimate visas,” Rijal clarified. “As the situation is currently under scrutiny, determinations regarding potential actions—such as deportation to India, return to Bhutan, or other measures—remain pending.”
Following a habeas corpus petition submitted by the family to Nepal’s Supreme Court, the court issued an order mandating their presentation before the court on April 24 and imposing a stay on deportation until that date.
Initially, Ashish and the nine others were transported from the U.S. to Delhi by air. Reports indicate they received appropriate treatment, including hotel accommodation during their layover. Subsequently, they were flown to Paro International Airport in Bhutan on the following day.
Upon arrival in Bhutan, according to Ashish’s father, the Bhutanese government received them politely but did not grant them extended stay. Following standard questioning, each individual in the group was provided with 30,000 Indian rupees and transported to Phuentsholing, an Indian border town. Within a 24-hour period, they were once again outside Bhutan.
“Bhutan’s acceptance of these individuals from the United States suggests a tacit recognition of their citizenship. However, their subsequent deportation to the Indian border within a single day exposes a duplicitous nature,” commented Dr. Gopal Krishna Shiwakoti, former chair of the Asia Pacific Rights Network. “It is inherently paradoxical to dispatch them to a nation that previously denied them citizenship, prompting the U.S. to resettle them in a third country.”
From Phuentsholing, the group journeyed toward Nepal, facilitated by Indian intermediaries. Subsequently, Ashish, along with his associates Santosh Darji, Roshan Tamang, and Ashok Gurung, were apprehended by Nepalese authorities.
“I was deeply shocked,” Narayan expressed. “To be treated as a criminal within your own refugee camp after so many years… it is devastating.”
Nepal lacks a complete legal structure addressing the protection of refugees or the issue of statelessness. This deficiency leaves individuals like Ashish in a precarious legal position – neither welcomed back by Bhutan nor officially recognized as refugees in Nepal, resulting in a state of legal limbo.
Tulsi Bhattarai, the immigration official overseeing the inquiry, verified that four of the ten individuals remain in custody. “Their testimonies corroborate their entry into Nepal from Bhutan through India,” Bhattarai stated. “We have gathered documentation from their time in refugee camps and have submitted a comprehensive report.”
Echoes of the 1990s Refugee Crisis
Advocates contend that the current situation resonates with the initial phase of the 1990s refugee crisis.
“We have returned to the starting point,” Shiwakoti observed. “This is a complete recurrence of past events. Nepal must promptly commence diplomatic discussions with Bhutan to address this matter.”
Between 2007 and 2018, UNHCR data indicates that over 113,000 Bhutanese refugees were resettled in third nations, predominantly the U.S. However, approximately 6,500 individuals still reside in refugee camps within Nepal, enduring indefinite uncertainty. Currently, deportees like Ashish are facing a renewed crisis.
International Intervention Urged
International human rights organizations are expressing concern. In a joint statement, Bhutanese political figures and civil society leaders have appealed to the United Nations, the U.S. and Indian embassies, and the Nepalese government for intervention. Their primary appeal is for the recognition of the ten deported individuals as Bhutanese citizens and for their protection under international refugee ordinances.
“These individuals are not mere statistics; they possess personal histories, identities, and fundamental rights,” stated Ram Karki, coordinator of the Global Campaign for the Release of Political Prisoners in Bhutan (GCRPPB).
Narayan remains in Beldangi, awaiting news. His son continues to be in custody, facing an uncertain future trajectory.
“I simply desire my son’s freedom,” he added. “We have already lost our homeland once. Must we endure such a loss again?”