On October 31, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an opinion in Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- that fundamentally reshapes how immigration courts handle safe third country bars under Asylum Cooperative Agreements. If you represent asylum seekers, you need to understand the new procedural framework for challenging ACA removals to Honduras—and it is far more demanding than pre-2025 practice.
What changed
The BIA’s opinion lays out a roadmap for how immigration judges should examine DHS’s efforts to remove aliens pursuant to safe third country “Asylum Cooperative Agreements” (ACAs), in this case, an ACA entered into with Honduras on March 10.
The core ruling: An immigration judge must first determine whether the safe third country bar applies under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h) before moving on to consider the merits of an asylum application. This is now mandatory, threshold-first analysis.
The BIA suggests that immigration judges should usually be able to evaluate the harm an alien subject to an ACA notification may face in the third country at a master calendar hearing instead of at a full-blown evidentiary hearing. In other words, DHS can seek dismissal (pretermission) of an asylum case early and with minimal procedural ceremony.
The burden-of-proof shift is critical. If DHS successfully invokes an ACA, the burden of proof shifts entirely to the asylum applicant. To overcome the safe third country bar and proceed with their asylum claim in the United States, the applicant must now establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they would more likely than not face persecution on account of a protected ground or torture in the relevant third country.
The BIA concluded that the respondents failed to present evidence that they’d “ever been to Honduras or that anyone in Honduras would target them for harm based on their Guatemalan nationality or their alleged status as individuals ‘fleeing from threats and violence against their family in Guatemala’.” General country reports and conclusory statements are not enough.
Why it matters
The BIA’s decision permits DHS to dispose of an asylum case on a procedural ground—the failure to overcome the ACA bar—potentially before the applicant ever receives a full hearing on the underlying merits of their fear of persecution in their home country. This is a monumental shift in strategy, particularly for those who have traveled through countries with which the U.S. has an effective ACA, such as Guatemala or Honduras.
Litigation timeline has inverted. You now face ACA challenges at the master calendar stage, forcing you to develop a third-country-specific record immediately rather than building a home-country asylum case first. The legal fight has now been front-loaded. Applicants and their counsel must be prepared to litigate the applicability of the ACA and the risk of persecution or torture in the safe third country immediately.
The BIA suggests that immigration judges should usually be able to evaluate the harm an alien subject to an ACA notification may face in the third country at a master calendar hearing (the immigration court equivalent to a docket call in criminal court) instead of at a full-blown evidentiary hearing. Abbreviated proceedings mean less time to gather evidence.
Evidence demands have shifted dramatically. Specific, individualized evidence is required—not just general country reports. Courts have been clear that generalized evidence of poor conditions is not enough. Generalized Honduras country conditions will not overcome an ACA bar; you need client-specific declarations, evidence of how the ACA partner country would specifically target your client, and proof of persecution or torture risk particular to that individual.
Way forward
-
Litigate ACA applicability early. Do not assume ACA bars are automatic. The ACA does not apply to unaccompanied alien children, Honduran nationals or “habitual residents of Honduras”, individuals “involved in” certain crimes, and subjects of “Interpol notifications”. Raise carve-outs at the first opportunity.
-
Develop individualized third-country evidence immediately. When DHS files a motion to pretermit under an ACA, do not rely on country reports. Obtain sworn declarations from your client detailing specific family, work, or political ties to the partner country and specific articulation of why that country would target them for persecution or torture. Cases with detailed, individualized sworn declarations fare far better than those relying on country reports alone.
-
Preserve procedural and retroactivity defenses. If DHS filed its motion after a court-ordered deadline, that untimeliness is grounds to oppose it. Document when the ACA became effective and when your client entered the U.S.; retroactivity arguments are still live in the courts.
-
Appeal pretermission to the BIA. Even if an immigration judge grants pretermission, both parties have 30 days to appeal to the BIA. ACA jurisprudence is still developing; circuit court review may be available on constitutional or Administrative Procedure Act grounds.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Do not rely on this summary as a substitute for advice from a licensed immigration attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Immigration policy can change without notice. Always verify the current status of regulations and precedent against the primary BIA decision, the Honduras ACA text, and the applicable regulations cited in this article.