Government should revise draft to ensure refugee protections
(BANGKOK, August 6, 2026)—New draft regulations on deportations from Thailand lack adequate safeguards and could enable authorities to forcibly return refugees and other people to countries where they face persecution, torture, enforced disappearance, or death, Fortify Rights said today, recommending that the government immediately suspend their adoption and comprehensively review them. Last month, Thailand’s Cabinet approved the Prime Minister’s Office Regulation on Deportation, which would establish expedited procedures for deporting non-Thai nationals, including refugees and others at risk of serious human rights violations.
“The Thai government is trying to make fast-track deportation a standard procedure, but faster deportations mean faster human rights violations—without effective safeguards,” said Thanida Piyachot, Human Rights Specialist at Fortify Rights. “The Thai government should halt the regulation’s adoption, subject it to careful review, and meaningfully consult refugees, civil society, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure it complies with Thailand’s human rights obligations.”
On July 14, 2026, Thailand’s Cabinet approved the draft Prime Minister’s Office Regulation on Deportation, proposed by Deputy Prime Minister Pakorn Nilprapunt in coordination with the Royal Thai Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Commerce, and the Ministry of Justice. The proposed law is ostensibly intended to streamline the removal of foreign nationals who violate immigration laws, such as illegal entry and overstaying, are convicted of criminal offenses, or are engaged in unauthorized business activities. The government said the regulations would improve coordination among state agencies, speed up deportation procedures, and strengthen national security while complying with Thailand’s international obligations.
By emphasizing rapid deportation without requiring the authorities to properly assess refugees’ protection needs, the draft law increases the risk of returning people to countries where they could face persecution, torture, or other serious harm. It would also allow the authorities to return individuals to the last country where they lived if their nationality cannot be confirmed, putting groups such as the Rohingya from Myanmar at particular risk.
According to documents on file with Fortify Rights, relevant government agencies provided comments on the draft regulation before Cabinet approval. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs concluded on July 12, 2026:
[T]he draft was consistent with Thai law, national policy, and Thailand’s interests. … However, the implementation of the regulation should comply with Thailand’s laws, Cabinet resolutions, and international obligations relating to extradition, including the principle of non-refoulement, which is recognized under customary international law and reflected in international human rights treaties to which Thailand is a party.
Since early 2024, Thai authorities have worked in concert with the Myanmar military to forcibly return Myanmar nationals from Thailand to Myanmar, where they face forced conscription, torture, and other forms of persecution. Fortify Rights exposed how Thai immigration authorities worked directly with representatives of the Myanmar military junta to forcibly return more than 3,500 Myanmar nationals through the Ranong-Kawthaung border crossing between February 2024 and November 2025.
The practice has continued. Based on Fortify Rights’s ongoing open-source monitoring, Thai authorities forced at least 808 additional Myanmar nationals to Myanmar from January 2026 to July 7, 2026, which counts for an estimated total forced returns of 4,571 since December 2023. Many of those returned face a substantial risk of arbitrary detention, torture, and forced military conscription under the Myanmar junta’s practice of forced conscription.
In interviews with Fortify Rights, officials from the Ranong Immigration Office said they had followed their standard operating procedures when carrying out pushbacks. They explained that coordination with the Myanmar military junta was necessary because the Kawthaung border crossing with Myanmar, unlike other sections of the Thailand-Myanmar border, remains under the junta’s control. As a result, the officials said this “government-to-government” arrangement provides operational clarity, as Thailand has not recognized any alternative authority of Myanmar’s ethnic or resistance groups. They stated that Immigration’s responsibility ends once the deportation is completed and declined to elaborate on operational details.
Fortify Rights also interviewed Myanmar refugees who faced Thailand’s pushbacks and testified how Thailand’s existing procedures failed to provide effective protection for them and other people at risk of persecution. “Kyaw Tin Soe” is a 42-year-old former Myanmar police officer from Mandalay and a member of the country’s Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM)–a nationwide movement of civil servants who refused to serve under the military junta after the 2021 coup. He told Fortify Rights about the dangers he would face if returned to Myanmar military junta’s custody:
If we were sent back to the junta, I would be sent to Mandalay, and [my wife] would be sent to Yangon. We would face a trial under Section 505[A]—I could be executed, or get a life sentence, and be tortured. … The [Thai immigration] officers even told us, “If you don’t want to stay here [immigration detention center] that long, you have to withdraw from the UNHCR process. Say that and record it on video, and we’ll release you soon.”
The risks extend beyond Myanmar. In February 2025, Thai authorities forcibly returned approximately 40 Uyghur refugees to China after they spent years in immigration detention, despite repeated warnings from U.N. experts and governments that they could face imprisonment and other serious human rights violations upon return.
The draft Prime Minister’s Office Regulation on Deportation does not fully comply with Thailand’s international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement, which is a non-derogable obligation under customary international law, making it binding on all states regardless of whether they are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention. States may not return any person to a country where they face a real risk of torture, persecution, or other serious human rights violations, and this obligation cannot be set aside on grounds of national security, public order, or other policy considerations. Thailand has further codified this obligation in Section 13 of the Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act B.E. 2565 (2022), reinforcing its duty to prevent refoulement.
Thailand’s Deportation Act B.E. 2499 (1956), as amended by the Deportation Act (No. 3), B.E. 2521 (1978), Section 6 paragraph 3 acknowledged: “In the case where the execution of the deportation order has not been set ready (sic) for the deportee to be deported from Thailand yet, the Minister [of Interior] may, during the detention of the deportee and upon the deportee’s request, issue an order allowing the deportee to be sent for work at any place instead of being detained as deemed appropriate.” However, in practice, refugees without legal status are typically prosecuted and forcibly deported under the Immigration Act.
On July 15, 2026, civil society working to support refugees in Thailand released a joint statement urging the Thai government to halt the adoption of the draft regulations and conduct a comprehensive review through meaningful consultations with the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, international law experts, international organizations, and civil society. The Thai government has not engaged in such consultations before releasing the draft law.
In 2019, the Thai government issued the Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on the Screening of Aliens who Enter into the Kingdom and are Unable to Return to the Country of Origin B.E.2562 (2019), also known as the “National Screening Mechanism.” The Regulation aims to protect refugees; however, the mechanism remains ineffective in practice and continues to exclude both Myanmar refugees and Rohingya from receiving protection under the mechanism.
“Looking at the historical development of Thailand’s deportation laws in relation to the refugee situations in the past, it is clear that this regulation is more likely to harm refugees than protect them,” said Thanida Piyachot. “Although anti-migrant sentiment may be growing in Thailand and around the world, making refugee protection increasingly politically challenging, the Thai government should remain committed to doing what is right and lawful rather than yielding to political pressure.”
Photo credit: The Prime Minister’s Office spokespersons announced the outcomes of the Cabinet meeting on July 14, 2026. ©Secretariat of the Prime Minister, Royal Thai Government, 2026.