Mizzima
A letter from UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Thomas Andrews , to US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem written on 12 January 2026 has been made public. The letter sharply criticises the department’s actions in ending the Temporary Protected Status previous offered by the US government for Myanmar nationals.
The text of the letter is as follows. The highlighted sections and footnotes are from the original.
I have the honour to address you in my capacity as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 58/20. In line with the communications procedure for comments on legislation and policy, I wish to provide observations regarding your decision taken on 25 November 2025 to terminate the Temporary Protected Status for nationals of Burma (Myanmar) and to seek clarifications of facts cited and the compatibility of the termination with international human rights standards.
Background
According to the public notice announcing the termination, your Department has concluded that conditions in Myanmar no longer hinder the safe return of its nationals and cited improvements in governance and stability as the basis for ending TPS. While recognising domestic prerogatives governing TPS, I am concerned about conditions on the ground that appear inconsistent with those conclusions and about the implications of this decision for individuals who, upon return, may face serious harm as I have documented in my various reports.
Formal steps (e.g., ending a nationwide state of emergency or moving toward electoral processes) do not, by themselves, demonstrate reduced human rights risk for potential returnees. Persistent fighting in several regions, restrictions on participation, and constraints on civic space undermine assumptions of stability or safe return. Assessments of safety must be grounded in protection indicators (cessation of attacks on civilians, release of political detainees, meaningful civic space), rather than solely on institutional changes or electoral timetables.
I respectfully note that recent official U.S. positions appear to recognise ongoing, serious risks in Myanmar: the national emergency regarding Burma (Myanmar) was continued on 4 February 2025, citing continued detentions of government leaders, politicians, human rights defenders, journalists, and religious leaders; targeted sanctions were announced on 25–26 September 2025 against actors facilitating arms for the junta; and remarks at the UN General Assembly on 30 September 2025 described violence and instability as worsening, with the regime continuing to oppress minorities and bomb civilians.
I would be grateful for clarification on how the TPS termination assessment aligns with these positions.
Compliance of the decision with international human rights norms and standards.
As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, the United States is bound to ensure that any policy decision affecting removal or return of Myanmar nationals complies with the applicable international protections—above all the prohibition of refoulement. These obligations apply to all persons under U.S. jurisdiction and must guide the assessment and implementation of measures that could foreseeably expose individuals to irreparable harm upon return.
Under CAT article 3, States must not expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of torture. The Committee against Torture’s general comment No. 4 (2017) clarifies that this is an absolute obligation and requires individualised assessment by competent administrative and/or judicial authorities. In addition, article 3(2) provides that, to determine whether such grounds exist, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
The Committee also explains that authorities should consider non exhaustive indicators of risk when deciding on removal. In paragraph 29 of General Comment No. 4, it points to human rights situations that may indicate a danger of torture and therefore trigger non refoulement, and advises that such indicators be given due weight in removal decisions (for example, generalised or widespread violence, patterns of arbitrary detention, torture or ill treatment, persecution of particular groups, and other serious human rights violations).
The Committee further highlights the procedural safeguards and preventive guarantees required to ensure that removal does not proceed where a credible risk is raised: an objective and individual examination, the guarantee of a prompt and transparent process, review of any deportation decision, and an appeal with suspensive effect, together with access to legal assistance, interpretation, and, where relevant, medical evaluation. Any person found to be at risk of torture if deported should be allowed to remain in the territory so long as the risk persists; and must never be removed to another State from which they may subsequently face removal to a third State where substantial grounds exist to believe they would be in danger of torture (i.e., indirect/chain refoulement). These standards are the benchmark against which any decision affecting potential returns must be measured.
The ICCPR further requires States to respect and ensure Covenant rights to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction. This entails an obligation not to return a person to a real risk of irreparable harm, such as arbitrary deprivation of life (article 6) or torture/cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (article 7), either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The decision to terminate protection must therefore be assessed against these duties to prevent, not facilitate, exposure to grave violations.
In refugee law, the United States’ accession to the 1967 Protocol entails application of articles 2–34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, including article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention which codifies the core principle of non-refoulement: no State shall “expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever” to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened. The obligation is engaged by direct and indirect (chain) refoulement, and it requires decision makers to look beyond formal developments to actual protection outcomes – whether risks of lethal violence, persecution or serious harm have materially abated. Consistent with UNHCR’s Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Myanmar (May 2024), which issues a non-return advisory and calls on States to suspend forced returns of Myanmar nationals and habitual residents until conditions permit safe, dignified and sustainable return (paras. 21–22), references to elections or ceasefire announcements must be corroborated by evidence of sustained reductions in attacks on civilians, release of political detainees, and unimpeded humanitarian access, before any conclusion can be drawn that return is safe.
Finally, the broader framework of international protection situates these duties within the right to seek and enjoy asylum (UDHR article 14) and reflected in the architecture of refugee and human rights treaties. While the UDHR is not itself binding, it informs interpretation of the above-mentioned treaty commitments and underscores the imperative that removal measures do not defeat the very purpose of international protection where a real risk persists.
As it is my responsibility, under the mandates provided to me by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention, I would be grateful if you would address the following:
Please explain the evidentiary basis and risk assessment methodology underlying the conclusion that conditions “no longer hinder the safe return” of Myanmar nationals— including sources, timeframes, and how generalised risks and individual protection needs were weighed—consistent with the prohibition of refoulement under international law and the obligation to assess real risk of persecution, torture/ill treatment, and other irreparable harm prior to removal and to respect and ensure Covenant rights to all persons under jurisdiction (CAT art. 3; CAT general comment No. 4; ICCPR art. 2 read with arts. 6, 7; HRC general comment No. 31, 1951 Refugee Convention).
Please provide additional information on safeguards to prevent direct/indirect refoulement where a “foreseeable, personal, present and real” risk of torture/ill-treatment, arbitrary deprivation of life, or other irreparable harm exists, including: objective individualised risk assessment; prompt and transparent procedure; review of the removal decision with suspensive-effect appeal; access to counsel/interpretation; and timely notification—applicable to all forms of transfer (CAT art. 3; CAT GC 4 (paras.12–13); 1951 Refugee Convention art.33, and ICCPR arts. 6–7).
Please provide additional information on the evaluation of high-risk profiles (e.g., activists, human rights defenders, journalists, members of minorities) and how ongoing conflict dynamics are factored into return risk determinations, in light of the right to life, prohibition of torture/ill treatment, and security of person (ICCPR arts. 6, 7, 9; HRC GC No. 31, applicability to all persons under jurisdiction/effective control).
In light of conditions inside of Myanmar, non-refoulement obligations and the risks documented, I respectfully invite your Department to reexamine the TPS termination decision and, in the meantime, to ensure that no removal occurs in violation of international obligations. I remain available for constructive dialogue and technical engagement, including on screening procedures and protection safeguards.
This communication, as a comment on pending or recently adopted legislation, regulations or policies, and any response received from your Excellency’s Government will be made public via the communications reporting website after 48 hours. They will also subsequently be made available in the usual report to be presented to the Human Rights Council.
Sincerely,
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
Comments
Post a Comment