
Ejected from US, rejected by Bhutan and Nepal: Himalayan refugees face statelessness
United States
this spring, in a move that stunned resettled communities across America, have found themselves in devastating legal limbo after
Bhutan
refused to accept them upon arrival. Instead of a homecoming, the deportees were rejected at the border, leaving them stateless and adrift—most now confined once again to refugee camps in
Nepal
.
Nepal has said it cannot grant these refugees legal status and is in negotiations with the US government for a possible solution, but so far, no country has agreed to offer citizenship or permanent refuge.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Select a Course Category
Public Policy
Design Thinking
Cybersecurity
Artificial Intelligence
MCA
Degree
Others
Data Science
healthcare
Leadership
CXO
Finance
Product Management
Digital Marketing
PGDM
Operations Management
others
Management
Data Analytics
Data Science
MBA
Project Management
Healthcare
Technology
Skills you'll gain:
Economics for Public Policy Making
Quantitative Techniques
Public & Project Finance
Law, Health & Urban Development Policy
Duration:
12 Months
IIM Kozhikode
Professional Certificate Programme in Public Policy Management
Starts on
Mar 3, 2024
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
12 Months
IIM Calcutta
Executive Programme in Public Policy and Management
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
Who are the refugees?
The affected are primarily
Lhotshampa
, a Nepali-speaking ethnic minority forcibly driven out of Bhutan in the 1990s. Over 100,000 were housed in sprawling camps in eastern Nepal, and beginning in 2007, many resettled in the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK as part of a UN-led solution.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Smart Indians use these 5 WhatsApp tricks
Learn More
Undo
Ramesh Sanyasi, 24 was born in the Beldangi refugee camp in Nepal and migrated legally to the United States at age 10, becoming part of Pennsylvania's vibrant Bhutanese resettled community. He worked at an Amazon warehouse, hoping to build a stable future.
Everything changed after a night out with friends led to his arrest for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and providing false identification, according to court records. After serving an eight-month sentence, he was abruptly deported in April 2025: first to New Delhi, and then flown to Paro, Bhutan.
Live Events
Upon arrival in Bhutan, Sanyasi and two others were not welcomed—they were instead transported to the border with India. Bhutanese authorities handed each of them 30,000 Indian rupees (about $350) and arranged for someone to ferry them to Panitanki, a town on the India-Nepal border. There, the deportees paid smugglers to secretly cross the Mechi River back into Nepal, returning to the very refugee camp Ramesh had left more than a decade earlier.
'Life here is tough. I'm living without any identification documents, which makes everything challenging. I can't even withdraw money sent by relatives because I lack proper ID,' he told
CNN
. 'For now, I'm surviving on money sent from the US, but once that runs out, I don't know what will happen.'
Why were they deported?
Most, like Sanyasi, were not undocumented but lost their visas due to criminal convictions—sometimes minor, sometimes more severe—under US law. Many completed their sentences before deportation, but once expelled, found themselves returned to countries that neither recognize their citizenship nor accept their return.
At least 30 Bhutanese refugees have been deported by the US to Bhutan so far, all legally admitted to the US as children under a UN-led resettlement program. All deportees so far have been expelled again at the Bhutan border, given cash, and left to fend for themselves in India and, for most, eventually smuggled into Nepal.
According to
Gopal Krishna Siwakoti
, president of the International Institute for Human Rights, Environment and Development, many deportees are in hiding; some in Nepal, some still lost in India.
Four deportees have now been threatened with a second deportation—this time from Nepal, where they were arrested for illegally crossing the border. However, Nepal's Department of Immigration admits there is nowhere for them to go:
'We are in a dilemma: the US is unlikely to accept them back, and deporting them to Bhutan is not straightforward either,' said department director Tikaram Dhakal.
Life in limbo: The camps of eastern Nepal
For those who remain or have returned to the camps, mostly the elderly or infirm, conditions have evolved: electricity and running water are now present in places like Beldangi Camp, but the end of international aid has led to increased vulnerability, exploitation, and fear of detention. Informal work is the norm, but for many, legal protections are non-existent.
Political stalemate
Efforts for repatriation have repeatedly stalled. Neither Bhutan nor Nepal is party to the 1951
UN Refugee Convention
, complicating formal policy frameworks. Bhutan continues to resist accepting its former citizens, and recent years have seen the exposure of a fraudulent refugee registration scandal, further eroding trust and muddying advocacy efforts.
Diplomatic conversations have inched forward—Nepal announced renewed talks with Bhutan in 2023, but significant progress remains elusive. India, a key regional power, remains a reluctant participant in mediation, and international pressure on Bhutan has waned.
Q. What allowed thousands of Bhutanese refugees to move to the United States?
Most Bhutanese refugees moved to the US through a
UNHCR
and IOM-backed Third Country Resettlement Programme launched in 2007. The US first pledged to take up to 60,000 refugees from Nepali camps, later increasing to more than 80,000, the largest single-country intake. Resettlement was based on refugee status and need, not skills, and included other partner countries—over 100,000 Bhutanese were resettled globally by 2015.
Q. What is the UN Refugee Convention, and why is it important?
The 1951 UN Refugee Convention is a major international treaty that defines refugee rights and the duties of signatory nations. It guarantees non-refoulement (protection from forced return), and the rights to legal status, work, education, and due process. This Convention sets a standard for how refugees are to be protected and integrated by member countries, ensuring basic security and legal recognition.
Q. How does Nepal and Bhutan not joining the Convention affect refugees?
Because Nepal and Bhutan are not signatories, refugees there lack international legal protections—such as the right to residency, documents, protection from deportation, or legal employment. There's no obligation for local integration or citizenship, keeping refugees in prolonged limbo. Legal rights and policies are governed solely by domestic law, leaving refugees vulnerable to changing policies and without international recourse.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
Stop fuelling Russia's aggression: US warns China at UN over Ukraine war
Tensions flared between the United States and China at the United Nations Security Council meeting on Friday, as Washington accused Beijing of aiding Russia's war in Ukraine through the export of dual-use goods, while China refuted the claims and warned against US Ambassador to the UN, Dorothy Shea, urged countries, specifically naming China, to halt exports that contribute to Russia's military capabilities, including components found in drones and missiles used against claim to have implemented strong export controls on dual-use goods falls apart in the face of daily recovery of Chinese-produced components in the drones, weapons, and vehicles that Russia uses against Ukraine,' Shea told the 15-member Security Council. She emphasised that the continued flow of such goods to Russia helps its missile and drone attacks, and undermines global efforts to curb the conflict. 'If China is sincere in calling for peace, it should stop fuelling Russia's aggression,' Shea in turn, pushed back strongly against the accusations. China's deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang defended Beijing's stance, asserting that China has maintained strict controls and has not contributed weapons to the conflict.'China did not start the war in Ukraine, is not a party to the conflict, has never provided lethal weapons, and has always 'strictly controlled dual-use materials, including the export of drones,'' Geng also criticised the US for deflecting responsibility, saying, 'We urge the US to stop shifting blame on the Ukraine issue or creating confrontation and instead play a more constructive role in promoting ceasefire and peace talks.'Earlier, an investigation by news agency Reuters revealed that Chinese-made engines have been secretly routed to a Russian state-owned drone manufacturer under the guise of "industrial refrigeration units" in an attempt to bypass Western sanctions.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Governor C V Ananda Bose returns Bengal rape bill after Centre flags concerns
West Bengal governor C V Ananda Bose (Pic credit: ANI) KOLKATA: West Bengal governor C V Ananda Bose has returned the Aparajita bill to the Assembly for reconsideration, citing serious objections raised by the Centre regarding proposed changes to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), according to a high-ranking Raj Bhavan source. The Centre found that the Aparajita Women and Child (West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, passed in Sept 2024, contains changes in penal provisions for rape under multiple BNS sections, proposing "excessively harsh and disproportionate" punishments, sources said. A major point of contention is an amendment to BNS section 64. The state bill increases the punishment for rape from the current minimum of 10 years to either imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life or capital punishment. The ministry of home affairs (MHA) reportedly deemed this as unduly harsh and inconsistent with principles of proportionality. Another change that MHA has objected to involves the removal of BNS section 65, which prescribes stricter penalties for sexual assault of minors. According to sources, Union govt believe scrapping this clause weakens protections for the vulnerable groups and risks diluting the intent behind age-based classifications in rape laws. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brain tumor has left my son feeling miserable; please help! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo However, the clause that the Centre found most problematic is the one under section 66, making the death penalty mandatory in rape cases where the victim either dies or is left in a vegetative state. The MHA raised constitutional concerns, arguing that removing judicial discretion in sentencing violated established legal norms and Supreme Court rulings, sources said. State govt, however, said it had received no official communication either from the Centre nor the governor's office about these observations. Earlier, bills similar to Aparajita, like Andhra Pradesh Disha Bill, 2019, and Maharashtra Shakti Bill, 2020 - which had mandatory death penalty for all rape and gang-rape cases - were passed unanimously by state legislatures, but did not get President's assent. Trinamool Congress indicated the party would make it a political issue. TMC spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said: "The returning of the Aparajita bill is unfortunate, deplorable and condemnable... This has proved that BJP is unwilling to impose maximum punishment in these cases, as their members are implicated in molestations and rapes."


Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pitched battle on cards as CAL goes to polls today
Lucknow: Cricket enthusiasts, players and administrators will keep a close eye on the much-awaited election of the Cricket Association Lucknow (CAL) scheduled to be held on Saturday. A total of 155 voters, including 34 executive members and 121 club representatives, will cast vote. Before elections, these voters would decide on the mechanism of voting – through ballot or raising of hands – by majority vote. "CAL is prepared for both the mechanisms, as ballot papers have also been printed," a member told TOI. At least 49 candidates filed nominations for different posts of whom eight withdrew their nominations on the last date for withdrawal and scrutiny of nomination papers. Total 16 candidates have filed nominations for the post of the members of executive committee. Elections were to be held on a total 23 posts including that of one president, one senior vice-president, three vice-presidents, one secretary, four joint secretaries, one treasurer, one PRO and 11 executive members. Of these, three vice-presidents and one PRO were elected unopposed on the last day of withdrawal of nomination papers. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Nvidia's AI Strategy Is Clear - But Is Wall Street Paying Attention? Seeking Alpha Read More Undo Now the elections will be held for 19 posts. Since the elections are being held after a long time, those who have been watching the CAL closely believe that it could go to wires on some posts. Among the prominent candidates are retired IAS officer Navneet Sehgal (incumbent), Haider Raza, younger brother of former minister in Yogi govt Mohsin Raza, former president of Lucknow University Students' Union Neeraj Jain and Congress functionary from Bakshi Ka Talab Lallan Kumar. For the post of secretary, incumbent Khaleeq Mukhtar Khan is pitted against Arshi Raza, youngest brother of former minister Mohsin Raza, and Gopal Singh, who looks after LDA, Aliganj, sports complex. Meanwhile, candidate for the post of president Haider Raza said, "We have demanded election by ballot paper and boycott the election if it is held by raising of hands."