A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration cannot deport immigrants to countries where they have never lived or maintained ties without first telling them where they are being sent and giving them a meaningful opportunity to challenge the removal. The unanimous three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said federal immigration law requires procedures for people who fear persecution or torture in a proposed destination. The ruling rejects the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to treat deportations to so-called third countries differently from other removals. “An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Judge Seth Aframe wrote. Aframe, a Biden appointee, was joined by Judge Lara Montecalvo, also appointed by Biden, and Judge Jeffrey Howard, a George W. Bush appointee. The administration sharply expanded the use of third-country deportations as part of President Donald Trump’s mass-deportation campaign. Under the policy, officials argued that little or no advance notice was necessary when a receiving country offered broad assurances that deported people would not be tortured or persecuted. Earlier administrations had used the practice far less frequently and generally told detained immigrants their intended destination. They also allowed people to raise claims that they could face torture or persecution there. Trina Realmuto, a spokesperson for the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents immigrant-rights advocates in the case, said people covered by the lawsuit had spent more than a year fearing removal to countries they had never been told might receive them. “Many have been deported to horrendous situations and danger under this policy,” Realmuto said, praising the court for affirming the need for notice and a chance to raise protection claims before removal. The appeals court largely upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts, who has overseen the litigation for more than a year. Murphy had ordered the government to provide additional safeguards to people selected for third-country deportation. The Supreme Court previously paused Murphy’s effort to immediately restrict the policy. The justices also put on hold a separate effort to consider whether administration officials should be held in contempt for allegedly violating his initial order. Friday’s decision is likely to send the dispute back to the Supreme Court for further review. The appeals panel did narrow one part of Murphy’s February ruling. Murphy had concluded that immigrants generally had a right to be deported to their country of citizenship or to a country they selected during immigration proceedings, unless those options were impractical. The appeals court said the lawsuit did not provide the proper vehicle to decide that question because the lead plaintiffs had not alleged that DHS disregarded their stated destination requests. The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department did not immediately comment on the ruling.