Mayotte
On February 21, 2026, the Court of Appeal of Saint-Denis de la Réunion upheld the deportation orders issued by the Prefect of Mayotte against three Malagasy nationals. The individuals, identified as Ms. N.I.B., Ms. A.L., and Mr. R.T., had been detained at the administrative detention center in Mayotte following orders to leave French territory without delay, with Madagascar designated as their destination and a two-year ban on re-entry imposed.
The appellants contested the deportation orders, arguing that they violated their rights to private and family life and their freedom of movement. They also requested provisional residence permits and, in the event of deportation, demanded that the Prefecture cover the costs of their return to Mayotte.
After reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal found that the deportation orders were consistent with the legal provisions governing the entry and stay of foreigners in France. The court determined that the Prefect's decisions did not constitute a manifestly illegal infringement of the appellants' fundamental rights. Consequently, the court confirmed the initial deportation orders and dismissed the appeals.
This ruling underscores the stringent immigration policies enforced in Mayotte, a French overseas department facing significant challenges related to irregular migration. The decision highlights the judiciary's role in upholding administrative measures aimed at controlling immigration and maintaining public order in the region.
Legal experts note that this case reflects the broader context of immigration enforcement in Mayotte, where authorities are grappling with complex issues stemming from its geographical proximity to the Comoros and the resulting migratory pressures. The confirmation of these deportation orders may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting the rights of individuals subject to deportation.
For more details on the court's decision, refer to the official document available at the Cour de Cassation's website: https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/699d4279cdc6046d478a70b4
