Red Notices in Immigration Court: Using the INTERPOL Refugee Policy and Preparing for Pushback 

By Ariel Rawls , Attorney

What Is INTERPOL’s Refugee Policy? 

INTERPOL’s Refugee Policy applies to more than just refugees. As reflected in INTERPOL’s Refugee Resolution, the policy protects individuals who have been granted refugee status, asylum, or another form of protection that prevents their return to the country that requested the Red Notice. Once that protection is confirmed, INTERPOL generally deletes the Red Notice or diffusion originating from that country because it can no longer serve its intended purpose of facilitating arrest or extradition there. 

For U.S. immigration practitioners, this means the policy is not limited to refugees and asylees. It can also apply to individuals granted withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture, since those forms of relief likewise prohibit return to the country of feared persecution or torture. 

Importantly, the policy is not limited to individuals who have already received protection. It may also benefit asylum seekers and others with pending protection claims. That can make it particularly relevant for clients in removal proceedings. 

How does it work? 

The process is relatively straightforward. Counsel files a request for deletion with the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) and indicates that the applicant has protective status or has applied for international protection. The request includes a separate protective status form authorizing the CCF to verify that status with the country that granted, or is considering granting, the protection. INTERPOL provides guidance through its CCF Portal User Guide for Applicants.

Once the protective status is verified, the CCF may either temporarily or permanently delete the data from INTERPOL’s systems. Temporary deletion is common while an application for protection remains pending. If protection is later granted, counsel can notify the CCF so that it may consider permanent deletion. 

The strategic downside in removal proceedings 

For attorneys representing clients in immigration court, the Refugee Policy presents an important strategic consideration. 

Imagine your client is in defensive asylum proceedings and is the subject of a Red Notice. The quickest path to removing the Red Notice from INTERPOL’s systems may be to invoke the Refugee Policy based on the pending asylum application. You can even request expedited processing because your client is seeking protective status. If successful, the data may be temporarily deleted, meaning member countries no longer have access to it and are instructed not to act on it. 

That sounds like an easy win. 

The complication arises when counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is relying on the Red Notice to support a mandatory bar to relief, such as the serious nonpolitical crime bar. In our experience, DHS may argue that a temporary deletion under the Refugee Policy is simply an administrative consequence of the respondent’s protective status. According to that argument, the deletion says nothing about whether the underlying criminal allegations are reliable or consistent with INTERPOL’s rules. 

In other words, temporary deletion alone may not persuade an immigration judge that the Red Notice has lost its evidentiary value. 

A practical approach 

Whenever possible, do not rely exclusively on the Refugee Policy. 

If the facts support it, include independent arguments that the Red Notice violates Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution because it is predominantly political in nature, or Article 2 because it is inconsistent with INTERPOL’s human rights obligations. Those arguments often rely on the same evidence immigration attorneys are already developing: country conditions evidence, expert declarations, evidence of political persecution, procedural irregularities, and documentation demonstrating the lack of due process in the requesting country. 

There are two advantages to this approach. 

First, you still preserve the benefits of the Refugee Policy. 

Second, you create a record showing that the Red Notice is subject to substantive legal challenge independent of your client’s immigration status. That can be particularly valuable in immigration court. Even if the CCF initially issues only a temporary deletion, you can provide the immigration judge with the pending deletion request and explain that INTERPOL is actively considering substantive challenges to the Red Notice—not merely applying the Refugee Policy automatically. 

This strategy may require additional time and resources, but it often produces a stronger record. 

It is also worth remembering that the CCF regularly deletes data for reasons other than the Refugee Policy. According to the CCF’s 2024 Annual Activity Report, of the 539 deletion requests decided in 2024, 322 resulted in findings of non-compliance with INTERPOL’s rules. Those included requests where the source country failed to cooperate, where the data violated established INTERPOL rules or practices, and cases involving application of the Refugee Policy.  

The takeaway is simple: if your client has strong Article 2 or Article 3 arguments, make them. The Refugee Policy is an important tool, but it should often be one component of a broader deletion strategy rather than the entire strategy. 

This is Part Three of our series on handling INTERPOL Red Notices in U.S. immigration court. Stay tuned for future installments, including a closer look at the serious nonpolitical crime bar and strategies for responding when DHS relies on a Red Notice in removal proceedings.