Kathmandu, 17 Jul: It has been 26 days since the government decided to deport four refugees who were deported from the United States and arrived in Nepal via Bhutan.
According to the Department of Immigration, the individuals, who entered Nepal illegally without passports or visas, must each pay a fine of NPR 5,000. Additionally, they are required to pay visa fees and a daily penalty of 8 USD (excluding days spent in detention), as per a decision made by the department on Asar 6 (June 20).
Despite the decision being nearly a month old, the department remains uncertain about where exactly to deport them.
Tikaram Dhakal, the department’s spokesperson and also its director, stated that the preference is to deport them back to the United States, and if that’s not possible, then to Bhutan. For that, however, the refugees must provide valid travel documents.
“We will deport them to whichever country they present travel documents for,” Dhakal told Setopati.
This raises a critical question: can Ashish Subedi, Roshan Tamang, Santosh Darji, and Ashok Gurung—who were first deported from the U.S. to Bhutan and then expelled from Bhutan—realistically obtain travel documents from either country?
The Bhutanese government has already confiscated all the documents they had brought with them from the United States. So how are they supposed to present documents they no longer possess?
The Department of Immigration has no clear answer to that question either. Meanwhile, the four refugees, currently staying in camps in Jhapa and Morang, are left confused and uncertain about their fate.
It has been 26 days since the Government of Nepal decided to deport four Bhutanese-origin refugees who were sent back from the United States and entered Nepal via Bhutan.
According to the Department of Immigration, the four individuals—Ashish Subedi, Roshan Tamang, Santosh Darji, and Ashok Gurung—entered Nepal illegally without passports or visas and are each required to pay a fine of NPR 5,000. Additionally, they are liable to pay USD 8 per day (excluding detention days) as visa and late fees, a decision issued on June 20 (Asar 6).
Despite the decision, the department remains uncertain about where to deport them. Immigration spokesperson and director Tikaram Dhakal said the preference is to deport them back to the U.S., or otherwise to Bhutan. For that, however, the refugees need to present valid travel documents. “Whichever country they bring documents for, we will deport them there,” Dhakal said.
However, the four men no longer possess their documents, which they claim were confiscated by Bhutanese authorities. This raises the question: how can they produce documents they no longer have?
Officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs, including Refugee Coordination Unit Chief Ramchandra Tiwari and Home Secretary Gokarna Mani Duwadi, echoed that the Immigration Department’s decision will be followed without deviation. Ministry officials have avoided public comments beyond this position.
On the other hand, a senior official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Nepal’s decision sends a strong message that the country will no longer automatically accept refugees deported from the U.S. or expelled by Bhutan, unlike in the past. “The primary responsibility lies with the U.S.,” the official said. “These individuals did not enter the U.S. illegally—they were resettled there legally under international programs. The mistake lies in deporting them to Bhutan.”
According to the official, Bhutan then passed them on to Nepal quietly, evading international attention. “This has unfairly burdened Nepal, and we should no longer be the fallback for others’ policy failures,” the official added.
He also warned that this decision may affect other refugees currently residing in the U.S. under similar circumstances. “If Nepal remains lenient, more such cases could end up here,” he said. “Bhutan and the U.S. must take responsibility. Nepal should not carry this burden alone.”
When asked if Nepal has held diplomatic talks with the U.S. or Bhutan regarding the matter, Refugee Coordination Unit Chief Tiwari stated that “diplomatic efforts are underway, but this is not something we can speak about publicly.”
The four young refugees are children of Bhutanese refugees expelled in the early 1990s and were raised in refugee camps in Nepal. They were resettled in the U.S. under the UNHCR’s third-country resettlement program. While in the U.S., they were convicted in various criminal cases and claim they were deported even after serving their sentences.
Three of them were arrested on March 29, and the fourth on April 1, after arriving at the Beldangi refugee camp in Jhapa, Nepal. They were detained for 28 days before Ashish Subedi’s father filed a habeas corpus petition at the Supreme Court. On April 23 (Baisakh 11), the court ordered their release, instructing authorities to keep them in designated areas within the camp and to complete the investigation within 60 days.
Now living in difficult conditions inside the refugee camps, they are struggling to calculate their increasing fines. “Today marks exactly 114 days,” Ashok Gurung told Setopati, adding that the longer they stay, the more money they owe. According to government estimates, each must now pay over NPR 20,000 in total.
Without valid documents from either the U.S. or Bhutan, the men have no idea how long they will have to stay in Nepal or how they will pay these fees. “I’m staying with Ashish’s father. We worry about how to eat, let alone pay the government,” said Ashok, noting he hasn’t even been able to change clothes since arriving.
Many have advised them to return to court, but the cost of legal proceedings has been a barrier. “We’re told to go to court, but even that requires money,” said Ashish’s father, Narayan Subedi, who is now sheltering multiple deported youths. “I worry they might get into trouble out of frustration, and we’ll have another crisis on our hands.”
His personal experience reflects growing concern that more deported refugees may be quietly arriving in Nepal. Authorities are reportedly turning a blind eye to their presence.
Human rights activist Gopal Krishna Siwakoti, who visited the camp recently, confirmed that he met other recently deported individuals. “If Nepal’s policy only targets resettled refugees, that might be acceptable long-term. But if it signals a complete end to accepting refugees, that would be a troubling shift,” said Siwakoti, who has long advocated on refugee issues in the Asia-Pacific region.
He added that Nepal must engage in serious discussions with the United Nations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UNHCR on how to resolve these cases.
