Skip to content 
Two Iranian men who say they fled their home country after being targeted for being gay are now facing imminent deportation from U.S. immigration custody, setting off a race between federal courts, immigration officials, and civil rights advocates who argue the men could be killed if returned to Iran.
Their case is unfolding as U.S. deportation flights to Iran have resumed after years of being rare, a shift that has alarmed attorneys and human rights groups who warn that people with political, religious, or LGBTQ-related claims can be exposed to severe punishment upon arrival.
The Case at the Center of the Fight
The men, a same-sex couple, entered the United States in January 2025 and sought asylum after fleeing Iran, according to reporting by The Advocate.
Their attorney, Rebekah Wolf, described them as “textbook asylum cases” because Iran criminalizes same-sex relationships and because they say they were arrested by morality police in 2021 for alleged same-sex conduct.
Wolf told The Advocate the couple was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and later moved through different facilities, including a transfer from Fort Bliss in El Paso to southern Arizona, where Iranian nationals were reportedly being assembled for removal.
Another outlet, the Arizona Mirror, reported that the men were being held in the Mesa area and feared execution if returned to Iran.
A key element in the reporting is timing. One partner reportedly received a last-minute court stay that temporarily blocked deportation, while the other did not have the same protection at the time the story was published, creating the possibility that the couple could be separated in a matter of hours.
Why Advocates Say Iran Is Uniquely Dangerous for LGBTQ Returnees
Iran’s legal system criminalizes same-sex intimacy. That alone does not describe the full danger facing LGBTQ people, attorneys argue, because enforcement, detention conditions, and the risk of violence extend beyond written statutes.
International refugee law guidance has long treated LGBTQ asylum claims as credible bases for protection when an applicant faces criminalization and persecution at home.
UNHCR’s guidelines on claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity lay out how decision-makers should evaluate such cases, including the reality that applicants may have limited documentation and may be unable to safely obtain proof from their country of origin.
In practical terms, lawyers and advocates point to a basic principle: asylum systems are not supposed to send people back to places where they face a serious risk of persecution.
That protection is closely tied to the international norm of non-refoulement, which bars returning someone to a country where they are likely to face grave harm.
U.S. Deportations to Iran Have Restarted
For years, deportations from the U.S. to Iran were limited and logistically difficult. That appears to have changed.
In September 2025, The Washington Post reported that Iranian officials said the U.S. planned to deport roughly 400 Iranian immigrants, with about 120 returning in an initial wave through Qatar, raising human rights concerns about who was being sent back.
Politico also reported that hundreds of Iranians faced deportation and described the move as unusual given the hostile relationship between Washington and Tehran, citing Iranian officials and reporting that the first flight of 120 deportees would route via Qatar.
Then, in December 2025, the Associated Press reported Iranian officials confirmed a second flight carrying 55 deported Iranians had left the United States.
PBS NewsHour published the same AP reporting, underscoring that the removals were continuing.
The renewed deportations matter because they change the real-world risk calculation. A person can have a final order of removal on paper for months or years, but once flights are actually moving, deportation can happen quickly, sometimes before higher courts fully weigh in.
Due Process Inside Immigration Court
One of the most serious claims raised in coverage of the men’s case is that their asylum proceedings unfolded under conditions that advocates argue were fundamentally unfair.
According to The Advocate, the couple’s lawyer says the men faced hearings without legal representation and that the case involved biased assumptions about what LGBTQ asylum seekers “should” sound like or prove.
Immigration court is civil, not criminal. That means there is no guaranteed right to a government-appointed attorney, even when the consequences can be life-altering. Detained asylum seekers often have limited access to evidence, limited time to prepare, and significant barriers to obtaining expert testimony or country-condition documentation.
For LGBTQ applicants, those barriers can be brutal. People who survived coercion or violence are often forced to recount intimate details in a setting that is fast-moving, adversarial, and skeptical by design.
Why the Timing of Court Action Can Decide Everything
In removal cases, the most important legal tool in the final hours is often a stay of removal, an emergency order that temporarily blocks deportation while a higher court reviews the case.
In the couple’s situation, the difference between a granted stay and a pending motion is the difference between being alive in the United States tomorrow or forced onto a flight.
That is why advocates frequently describe deportation cases as “race conditions” in real time, not only legal disputes. Court clerks, judges, ICE transport schedules, detention transfers, and airline logistics all become part of the outcome.
What Happens Next, and What It Signals
The men’s case has become a focal point for a broader argument about how the U.S. treats asylum seekers from high-risk countries amid stepped-up removals.
At its core, the question is simple: If a country criminalizes who you are, and credible reports show severe punishment for people like you, can the U.S. legally send you back anyway?
The administration and immigration authorities may argue that the law allows removal after a final order. Advocates respond that deporting LGBTQ people to Iran ignores the basic protective purpose of asylum, and that the risk is not theoretical.
With deportation flights to Iran now documented and ongoing, the stakes are no longer abstract policy debates. For the two men at the center of the case, it is a countdown.
