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
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
UP CM Adityanath, BSP chief Mayawati express grief over Satyapal Malik's death
Lucknow: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and BSP chief Mayawati on Tuesday expressed grief over the death of Satyapal Malik, the former governor of Jammu and Kashmir. In a post on X in Hindi, CM Adityanath said, "The demise of former governor Satyapal Malik ji is extremely sad. Humble tribute! My condolences are with the bereaved family. I pray to God to grant salvation to the departed soul and strength to the bereaved family to bear this sorrow. Om Shanti!" Condoling the death of Malik, BSP chief Mayawati in a post on X in Hindi said, "The news of the death of Shri Satyapal Malik, who was the governor of many states, including Jammu and Kashmir, today is very sad. My deepest condolences to his bereaved family and all his supporters. May nature give them the strength to bear this sorrow." Malik (79) died on Tuesday at a hospital in New Delhi after a prolonged illness, his personal staff said. He was 79. Malik, who had also held the positions of governor of Goa, Bihar, Meghalaya, and Odisha, besides being a member of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in his long political career, died at 1.12 pm at the Ram Manohar Lohia hospital in New Delhi. He was in the ICU of the hospital for a long time, getting treatment for various ailments, the staff said. In his gubernatorial role in Jammu and Kashmir, Malik oversaw the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories on August 5, 2019. Coincidentally, he took his last breath on the sixth anniversary of the Centre's move. Malik attracted a lot of controversy after alleging that he was offered a bribe to clear files of two major projects in Jammu and Kashmir and questioned the BJP-led central government over issues related to farmers and the Pulwama terror attack, among others.
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Canada: Spike in refusals for express entry applications where spouse is shown as ‘non-accompanying'
Representative Image Canada's immigration agency is increasingly rejecting 'Express Entry' applications for permanent residency, or is issuing procedural fairness letters (PFLs) in cases where applicants have declared their spouse as 'non-accompanying' often with the intent of improving their Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) score. In many instances, the spouse was already residing in Canada – working or studying. It is not just those outside Canada who can apply to become permanent residents under the Express Entry route – it is also open to those already in Canada such as on temporary work visas. Express Entry is Canada's point-based mechanism used to manage immigration applications for skilled workers who want to become permanent residents. Based on various parameters such as age, education, French language proficiency etc, candidates are given a Comprehensive Ranking Score (CRS). Post which, they are placed in the Express Entry pool and ranked relative to each other. Periodical draws are held and those attaining the cut-off CRS score get an invite to apply for permanent residency. When an individual applies without including his/her spouse ( shown as 'non-accompanying spouse'), the individual is assessed as a single applicant, which the point distribution system tends to favour. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Take a Look - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo A single applicant can get up to 40 more points under the 'Core Human Capital' section because spouse-related sub-factors are not considered. Being a single applicant helps boost scores if the spouse's credentials (education, language, etc) are weak and would drag down the scores. Kubeir Kamal, a regulated Canadian immigration consultant (RCIC) told TOI, 'This tactic of declaring a spouse as 'non-accompanying' has unfortunately become widespread, particularly among applicants who are already residing in Canada with their spouse on temporary status (eg: one is on a closed work permit and the other is on an open spousal work permit). In such cases, Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is rightly scrutinizing whether the spouse was ever genuinely intended to be excluded. ' Added Manish Kapoor, a regulated Canadian immigration consultant, 'IRCC has increasingly taken the position that if an applicant's spouse is physically present in Canada, it implies an intention to permanently reside. As such, declaring the spouse as non-accompanying may be interpreted as a misrepresentation under sections 16(1) and 40(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which require applicants to answer truthfully and prohibit the withholding of material facts. ' Kamal cautioned that if both partners are living and working in Canada, declaring a spouse as 'non-accompanying' without a valid and well-documented reason such as custody arrangements, or family obligations, can be seen as a deliberate misrepresentation, which in addition to refusal of the application can lead to a five-year ban from re-applying. 'If spouse is outside Canada, you may still list them as non-accompanying if it's truthful and justifiable—for instance, owing to custody of children or job obligations of the spouse in the home country. In this case, a strong letter of explanation and supporting evidence is required. Further, intentions must be aligned with the declaration: If you say they're non-accompanying, don't sponsor them immediately after landing!,' said Kamal. 'Historically, similar applications were approved without issue, raising concerns about consistency in decision-making in the application of policy. Many applicants argue that they have valid reasons for listing their spouses as non-accompanying and have provided clear explanations, yet refusals continue to rise. It will be important to watch how the Federal Court interprets the concept of an 'accompanying spouse,' particularly as an increasing number of applicants seek judicial review. The outcome of these cases may set a significant precedent for future immigration decisions,' added Kapoor.. Traditionally, India has been a top-source country for those getting invitations to apply for permanent residency under the Express Entry system. In 2023, nearly 52,100 Indians were invited to be permanent residents (bagging 47% of the total invites). Country-specific data for 2024 is not available. Of late, the modalities of the Express Entry mechanism have changed. All-program or general draws have become a rarity. Of late, IRCC has issued invitations to become permanent residents extensively based on category based Express Entry draws such as French‑language proficiency, Canadian Experience Class (CEC), Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), or occupational specific draws such as health‑care, education, and trades. Further, from March 25, candidates no longer earn additional Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) points for holding a valid job offer – this change was done to prevent fraud through illicit sales of 'Labour Market Impact Assessments'. Immigration experts point out that there are bonafide ways to improve the CRS score such as improving language results, obtaining proficiency in French or even by exploring PNP options.
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump says he will raise tariff of India 'substantially' in next 24 hours
Donald Trump TOI correspondent from Washington: Ties between US and India are headed downhill on the slippery slope of Russian oil. Accusing New Delhi of fueling the Moscow war machine, US President Donald Trump said he would, in the next 24 hours, raise tariffs on Indian exports "substantially" on top of the 25 per cent he has already announced. In a phone-in interview on CNBC, Trump claimed that New Delhi had agreed to zero tariffs for US exports into India, but asserted that's not good enough because of the Russia issue. "They're fueling the (Russian) war machine. And if they're going to do that, then I'm not going to be happy," a peeved Trump said, hours after New Delhi defiantly said it will continue to buy Russian oil, arguing that Washington had actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability. The fact that former US ambassador to India Eric Garcetti has confirmed this appears to have have irked the Trump White House, which suggests that the Biden administration gave India a free pass. The rules have now changed, forcing New Delhi -- and many countries across the world -- to consider switching policy depending on which party comes to power in America. In a separate interview on Fox News, Trump aide Stephen Mller said Trump "has been very clear that it is unacceptable for India to continue funding this war by buying oil from Russia.' Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pierce Brosnan's Wife Lost 120 Pounds - This Is Her Now Undo by Taboola by Taboola 'People are shocked when they learn that India is actually on par with China in terms of the volume of Russian oil purchases. That is a striking fact,' Miller said. Yet, the Trump White House has adopted different rules for different countries, cutting China plenty of slack because of the leverage it wields in terms of critical exports to the US like rare earths, compared to India. Similarly, countries that resist US hectoring and push back, like Canada, have attracted immediate punitive tariffs, compared to countries that have rolled over (Japan and South Korea) or bought have time (Mexico). In the CNBC interview, Trump continued his tirade against India for its high tariffs despite claiming New Delhi had agreed to lower it to zero. "Now I will say went from the highest tariffs ever, they will give us zero tariffs, and they're going to let us go in. But that's not good enough, because because of what they're doing with (buying Russian) oil," Trump said. The US President also knocked down current trade with India, which stands at around $135 billion, saying "we do very, very little business with India because their tariffs are so high." India ranks 9th on the list of US trading partners, but Trump is irked by the $45 billion trade deficit caused by India's $87 billion exports to the US, compared to its imports from the US of $42 billion. "So India has not been a good trading partner, because they do a lot of business with us, but we don't do business with them," he complained even though India has pledged to reduce the deficit by buying more US arms and armaments, oil and gas, among other exports. He wants India to open its markets for US auto industry like Japan, South Korea, and EU have done despite American car manufacturers being run out of a competitive global market. Trump's trade and tariff rampage has affected countries far and wide, rich and poor, with former allies and adversaries being re-arranged depending on who bows and scrapes before the US President with flattery and pledged of big investments in America. The US President threw out numbers like a $600 billion investment from EU and $500 billion from Japan among other pledges -- even though details of the purported agreements remain sketchy -- to boast that money is flowing into the US and the country is rich again. Trump's trade-centric, America First approach at the expense geo-political considerations has sent many world leaders scrambling to Washington. Switzerland's President Karin Keller-Sutter is rushing to the White House this week to negotiate lower taxes after Trump slapped a 39 percent tariff on the country, ostensibly because she was not obsequious enough during an argumentative phone call. The US is a big market for US for Swiss products such as luxury watches, jewellery, chocolate, and pharmaceuticals. While these items and products will become more expensive for American customers (as will items ranging from apparel to seafood that India exports to US because of the 25% plus tariffs), it will allow countries with lower tariffs to take advantage of the differential.
