Palau Establishes Persecution Review for U.S. Deportees, but Gaps Remain on Status, Authority and Oversight

By: L.N. Reklai

Koror, PALAU (January 9, 2026) — President Surangel Whipps Jr. has issued a new executive directive establishing procedures to assess persecution risks before removing certain foreign nationals from Palau, a move that responds to growing concerns over third-country nationals transferred from the United States — but one that also raises unresolved legal, constitutional and policy questions.

Presidential Directive No. 26-68, signed in January, creates an internal executive-branch process to review claims that a person would face persecution, torture or serious harm if deported from Palau, specifically applying to individuals accepted under Palau’s Memorandum of Understanding with the United States on the transfer of third-country nationals .

The directive comes amid public unease over Palau’s agreement to accept up to 75 deportees from the United States and growing scrutiny over what happens if those individuals later lose legal status in Palau.

“This Policy is intended to ensure that removal decisions do not expose individuals to persecution or other serious harm, while preserving Palau’s sovereign authority over immigration and border control,” the directive states .

Under the order, a Persecution Claims Review Committee — composed of the minister of state, minister of justice, the president’s chief of staff and two presidential appointees — must review any fear-based claim raised before removal. Deportation is automatically deferred while the review is underway, and the committee must submit a written recommendation to the president, who retains final decision-making authority .

The directive emphasizes that Palau does not have a general asylum or refugee system and explicitly states that it creates no legal status, no right to remain in the country and no private right of action .

Yet a legal analysis of the directive highlights that, in practice, the policy establishes a structured, quasi-asylum-like review mechanism — including interviews, country-conditions research, credibility standards and written presidential decisions — raising questions about whether such a system can be created by directive alone .

Among the unresolved issues: whether the president’s authority under Title 13 of the Palau National Code extends to creating a mandatory persecution-review process that temporarily halts removals, even though the statute grants broad discretion to remove non-citizens for national security or public order reasons .

The analysis also questions whether language stating that removal “should not proceed” when a claim is found credible effectively creates a de facto protection from deportation — similar to withholding of removal under international refugee law — without explicit legislative authorization .

Another key concern is scope. The directive applies only to individuals transferred under the U.S. MOU, not to other non-citizens in Palau who may also face persecution if removed. Legal analysts question whether limiting such protections to one group could raise equal-treatment or due-process concerns under Palau’s Constitution, especially given that international non-refoulement principles are generally non-discriminatory .

Long-term uncertainty also remains for individuals whose removal is deferred indefinitely. While the directive states that deferral does not create lawful status or access to benefits, it does not explain the legal basis for a person’s continued presence in Palau if conditions in their home country do not improve .

Questions have also been raised about detention authority. The policy bars detention solely because a persecution claim is filed but allows detention where “independently authorized by law,” a provision analysts say could invite inconsistent or unclear application without further statutory guidance .

Finally, while the directive asserts that decisions are purely discretionary and not subject to legal challenge, the analysis notes that courts could still be asked to review whether the executive followed its own procedures or acted arbitrarily once such a structured process exists .

For policymakers, the directive underscores a growing reality: Palau’s acceptance of third-country nationals under international agreements carries long-term legal and humanitarian consequences that may extend beyond existing immigration law.

Whether those consequences should be addressed through executive action alone or through legislation debated openly in the Olbiil Era Kelulau remains an open question — one with implications not only for deportees, but for Palau’s sovereignty, legal system and community stability.