Disclaimer:
The area of law discussed here is developing very quickly. Within a few weeks or even days, the situation may change, and information that was current at the time of publication could become outdated. The conditions of specific agreements are guaranteed to change even more often than the underlying law.
Therefore, this article is only a starting point for understanding the topic, and not full legal advice (we are not considering your particular situation here).
If you need an analysis of your case, you should consult a qualified immigration attorney who handles deportation defense.
In this material, we will consider:
To get ahead of ourselves, let's be frank: the situation is difficult, but not hopeless.
In essence, a person is put before a choice: leave for a country they have never been to before; return to their country of citizenship from which they fled; or stay in the U.S., file appeals, spend money — even a broom costs money — and resources, while often remaining in detention.
It sounds cruel, but the government's logic is simple: If a person truly fears persecution in the sense understood by law, then moving to a third country doesn't seem like such a bad option. And if not, then the whole story is a fiction, and the right to asylum was never there to begin with.
Concept:
According to § 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a foreigner does not have the right to request asylum in the U.S. if the Attorney General (in practice, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS) determines that this foreigner falls under one or more cooperative asylum agreements with third countries.
Put informally, the U.S. government can kick an asylum seeker "in the butt" and send them to another country so that their request is considered there. Such agreements have already been concluded with a whole range of states: for example, Honduras, Guatemala, Uganda, Ecuador, Belize, Paraguay, and others. (Our clients have dubbed them "SOS" agreements.)
Mechanism:
The law allows U.S. authorities, at their discretion, to send asylum seekers to the listed countries for consideration of their claims there. If successful, the applicant will receive a residence permit (or equivalent) in the third country, and if rejected, they will be sent back to their homeland.
It is important to emphasize two points. First, this mechanism is applied to cases that are already under consideration in the U.S., and at any stage of the process (even at the appeal stage). Second, it is applied with virtually no brakes, being limited only by the conditions of specific agreements and the minimal guarantees provided by the Constitution.
The powers of immigration courts on the issue of "safe third countries" are very limited – the judge does not decide whether an agreement is good or bad; he only verifies that the formal conditions of the law and the agreement are met.
Implementation history:
Mechanisms allowing asylum seekers to be "bounced" to third countries began to be developed back in 2019. However, in practice they were almost not used until recently. Despite campaign promises, the Biden administration essentially did nothing to finally abolish these tools.
As a result, in 2025, after the change of power, work on the agreements was resumed with new vigor. Old arrangements were reworked and expanded – for example, the agreement with Honduras now applies not only to those who traveled through that country, but also to those who have never been there. Plus, new agreements were concluded with additional states. And most importantly, these measures are now actually being applied at the border and inside the country.
Of course, in practice things do not always go by the worst-case scenario – there are alternatives and possible solutions to the problem, which we will discuss below. But first, let's figure out whom this can theoretically and practically affect.
General criteria:
Unfortunately, virtually any asylum seeker can face the application of a cooperative agreement, regardless of their citizenship, language skills, family presence, or ties in the U.S. The law lists basic conditions under which the "safe third country" bar is triggered.
In general terms, if the following conditions are met, a SOS may be applied to you:
Note:
The burden of proving danger in the third country lies on the foreign national themselves. You must show more than a 50% probability of persecution/torture, otherwise the judge will be forced to close the case without considering your asylum on the merits. Also, significantly less time is given for preparation – in practice, usually no more than a month. In most cases, people have no concrete evidence of threats from a country they've never been to – therefore, meeting this requirement is extremely difficult.
Specifics of the agreements:
In addition to the general criteria of the law, each agreement contains additional conditions and reservations. They differ and can change quite often (sometimes an exchange of notes between governments is enough to make changes).
As of December 2025, let's give an example of requirements based on the agreement with Honduras. A foreign national faces removal to Honduras if all the following conditions are met:
(1) entry into (or attempt to enter) the U.S. occurred after November 19, 2019 (there is a caveat about possible retroactive application);
(2) they have no valid visa or other lawful status in the U.S.;
(3) the set intake quota has not been exhausted (it specifies up to 10 people per month, although in practice this number is not strict and can be exceeded at Honduras's discretion);
(4) there is no certain criminal history (the agreement excludes persons involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, drug trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking, etc., as well as those wanted by Interpol).
Similar requirements are provided in agreements with other countries (for example, Uganda, Guatemala), although there are differences in the text that need to be analyzed in each case. (In the near future we will publish a summary table of all active agreements — stay tuned for updates.)
"Legalized blackmail":
Given the almost complete lack of limitations, the mechanism described effectively turns into an ultimatum for the asylum seeker. You are faced with a choice: either withdraw your request for protection in the U.S. and leave on your own for wherever you can, or you will be forcibly sent to a country where you have never been, most likely in custody. Agreed, that's a pretty lousy choice. Nevertheless, this is prescribed by law. Next, let's see how these rules have been implemented in practice in recent months.
Procedure in court:
In practice, the process under the "safe third country" is initiated by the prosecutor (DHS) filing a notice to the foreign national and a motion to terminate the case in immigration court. Formally, by law, such a motion should be made at the early stages of the process, as the Board of Immigration Appeals indicated in the precedent decision Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025).
However, today prosecutors invoke the agreement whenever they please: at the Master Hearing (preliminary hearing), the day before the individual merits hearing, and sometimes even right during the merits hearing.
We know of at least one case where the prosecutor suddenly asserted the applicability of a SOS in the middle of cross-examination – clearly to "torpedo" the applicant's strong case.
As soon as the issue of an agreement is raised, the judge is obliged to suspend consideration of the case on the merits. An immigration court cannot continue the asylum hearing while the "safe third country" issue is unresolved. (At the beginning of this saga, some judges tried to consider both topics in one process, but after the BIA's decision in October 2025, that practice stopped.) Next, as a rule, the judge offers the immigrant a choice: either prepare an objection to the motion to apply the agreement, or agree to self-deportation.
By self-deportation is usually meant voluntary departure from the U.S. under conditions proposed by the court (in some cases - they may escort you straight to the plane), before the judge issues a decision (essentially, you yourself request permission to leave, and the case is closed without a deportation order).
Note that courts now are very willing to offer the option of voluntary departure, even when it is not formally provided by law. Often judges themselves make concessions, ignoring prosecutors' objections. In our practice, there have been cases where we managed to get voluntary departure even for clients held in immigration detention on criminal grounds.
It creates the impression that this is part of a policy — "kick out as many as possible, even bypassing the rules". It is possible that over time such leniency will disappear, but for now judges are often ready to close a case at the respondent's request.
If voluntary departure is not suitable or not possible, and you don't want to leave for a third country, there is one thing left: prepare an objection and fight.
As a rule, the court gives at least 30 days to prepare a response.
Again, let us emphasize: by law, the burden of proving that the "safe third country" bar is inapplicable lies on the respondent, not on DHS. It is you who must convince the judge that the agreement should not be applied in your case (for example, due to risk of persecution); otherwise the case will be terminated.
If you manage to fend it off, the case returns to the normal course and will be considered for asylum. The judge's decision on the agreement issue can be appealed (like any court decision), however many immigrants, especially those sitting in detention, waive appeal — some are tired of fighting, others fear making the situation worse.
Who is chosen first:
From our observations, SOS is applied first and foremost to single individuals whose cases are close to being heard (either scheduled for a master, or for a merits interview). Initially, it seemed that primarily Spanish-speakers were getting hit (logically, since the first agreements were with Central American countries). But now the boundaries have blurred: the mechanism is applied even to Russian-speaking asylum seekers, including our clients — at different stages of the case, both in immigration detention and at liberty.
So far, we are not aware of cases where they tried to send families with children under an agreement, but the law does not forbid this, and sooner or later it will come to that.
Another point: a particular country's preferences by themselves do not guarantee that a SOS will not be applied to you. For example, Uganda officially stated that it prefers to accept refugees from African countries. Nevertheless, it has the right to accept a different nationality – say, Russians – and this is already happening.
Overall, it is obvious that the U.S. government is trying to expel as many asylum seekers from the country as possible, as quickly as possible, using minimally resource-intensive processes (and not even fully using the quotas under the agreements).
Therefore, those at particular risk are people who, in the authorities' opinion, are least likely to fight back – singles without family, those in detention, as well as people who have at least some ties with a third country.
However, this is only a trend, not a strict rule: as we see, all sorts of categories can fall under the sweep.
Example 1 (case of a refugee from Ecuador). One of our clients, a refugee from Ecuador, arrived in the U.S. about three years ago, fleeing persecution by the Ecuadorian authorities related to his activities against illegal mineral extraction. His escape was forced and hasty.
We handled his case for those three years: collected evidence, prepared justifications, spent hundreds of hours, and even achieved an expedited scheduling of a hearing.
But a day before the final merits hearing, the government attorney filed a motion in court (we will attach a copy of the document on the site) demanding to close the case – DHS had determined that the client falls under the agreement with Honduras.
In the template text of the motion, the prosecutor noted that the person entered the U.S. after 2019, is not a citizen of Honduras, and there is no reason to believe that he would be persecuted in Honduras.
We were not ready for this turn – previously, in similar cases, we had not had to fight off a SOS. Nevertheless, in ten hours we prepared a detailed objection, including all the arguments that we will discuss a little later. The immigration judge partially took our side. He refused to immediately terminate the case, pointing out that the government had not fulfilled its obligations by failing to notify us in advance of its intent to use the agreement. However, the judge also did not continue the merits hearing, since the law clearly prohibits doing so until the safe third country issue is resolved. The judge gave us time to prepare a response.
After weighing the situation together with the client (recall that at that time he was in detention, i.e., in immigration custody), we did not find a single reason why he might be persecuted specifically in Honduras. By all formal criteria, he indeed fell under the agreement. In theory, we still had the right to appeal the judge’s decision, but that would have meant the client would spend at least another six months in jail. The client, already quite exhausted from the time spent in custody, declined to continue the fight.
Despite the fact that he had a DUI arrest (which in a normal situation disqualifies one from voluntary departure), we managed to convince the court to allow him to leave on his own – over the prosecutor’s objections. Within two weeks our client was back in Ecuador.
In essence, the person was forced to choose between: (a) appealing while in detention; (b) being forcibly sent to a country he had never been to; or (c) voluntarily returning home. He chose the latter.
Example 2 (Russian-speaking applicant, case at liberty). Another client of ours (from New York) came to the U.S. alone.
At the Master Hearing (the first court session) he received a notice of the applicability of the agreement with Uganda – the prosecutor filed a motion to "throw out" the case (terminate consideration of the asylum application). The client's case itself was very typical: the person spoke out against the Putin regime and the war, because of which he feared persecution at home; moreover, in case of deportation he would face the army and deployment to the front line.
The judge did not close the case immediately, but gave us only a month to prepare a response. We are now actively working to prove the risk of our client's persecution in Uganda, and at the same time looking for other ways to protect him from deportation. Since the person is at liberty, we have the opportunity to take the case to appeal if necessary.
It should be noted that the other day, representatives of the immigration prosecutor's office (OPLA) announced their intention to send only citizens of African countries under the agreement with Uganda. The agreement with Uganda was indeed initially aimed mainly at Africans, however, formally these restrictions have not yet been implemented and can be revised if desired. Therefore, one cannot guarantee that a non-African will not be sent to Uganda.
The final outcome of our client's case is impossible to predict. It is known that in the same week, a similar scenario occurred with Russian-speaking asylum seekers in California, Florida, and Washington state — the problem has acquired a truly nationwide scale.
Despite all of the above, you have real opportunities to fight against being forcibly sent under an agreement. Practice shows that much depends on whether you are in custody or not, but in any case you should not give up. Below we list the key steps you should take.
Keep up with changes. Paradoxical as it may be, this advice is one of the most important. Immigration rules and the agreements themselves are literally changing before our eyes. What worked yesterday may not work today (and vice versa!). At the time of writing, the legal base on this issue is very small: essentially, the text of the INA, one precedent BIA decision (Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, October 2025) and the texts of several agreements, plus a handful of ongoing lawsuits in federal courts. Changes are inevitable, and you need to learn about them in time to adjust your defense strategy. Sometimes it's enough to add a fresh citation to your argument — and the case takes a new turn.
Use niche strategies. In one article it is impossible to cover all possible arguments. In some cases, specific nuances arise: for example, an improperly followed procedure (you were not notified in time, as in the example with our Ecuadorian client), or you have other grounds for relief (like a U-visa, VOKA, etc.), or even an opportunity appears to transfer the case to another jurisdiction. Discuss with a specialist all potential moves, based on your situation.