The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled on June 17, 2026, in a significant case concerning asylum claims and the safe third country bar. This decision impacts individuals seeking asylum in the United States, particularly those from countries like Cuba who may be affected by agreements with other nations, such as Ecuador. The ruling clarifies the necessity of evidentiary hearings in asylum cases involving cooperative agreements.
The case, known as Matter of A-C-M-, involves a Cuban national who entered the United States illegally in 2021 and applied for asylum. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that the respondent was subject to a safe third country bar due to an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA) between the United States and Ecuador. The BIA's decision underscores the implications of such agreements for asylum seekers and the legal standards applied in these situations.
Background
The respondent in this case is a native and citizen of Cuba who entered the United States without inspection on August 8, 2021. Following her entry, DHS initiated removal proceedings against her. On April 16, 2022, she filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). However, on August 7, 2025, DHS filed a motion to pretermit her applications, arguing that she was ineligible for asylum due to the ACA with Ecuador.
The ACA between the United States and Ecuador was signed on July 23, 2025, and published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2025. This agreement allows the U.S. to send certain asylum seekers to Ecuador for their claims to be processed. The respondent opposed DHS's motion, arguing that she had not been shown to have a substantial connection to Ecuador and that there were risks of generalized violence in that country.
The Ruling
The BIA, composed of Appellate Immigration Judges Owen, Gallow, and Hansell, sustained DHS's appeal and remanded the case back to the Immigration Court. The court ruled that the Immigration Judge had erred in requiring an evidentiary hearing before determining the applicability of the safe third country bar. The BIA stated, "When an alien is subject to an asylum cooperative agreement and the record is devoid of evidence showing the alien faces an individualized risk of harm in the ACA country of removal, it is generally unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the applicability of the safe third country bar to asylum."
The court noted that the Immigration Judge's decision to deny DHS's motion was based on a misunderstanding of the legal standards surrounding the safe third country bar. The BIA emphasized that the Immigration Judge should have determined whether the safe third country bar applied without the need for a lengthy evidentiary hearing, particularly since the respondent did not provide substantial evidence of a risk of harm in Ecuador.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future asylum seekers, particularly those from countries that have ACAs with the United States. The BIA's decision clarifies that when there is no evidence of an individualized risk of harm in the third country, an evidentiary hearing may not be necessary. This could streamline the asylum process for individuals in similar situations, potentially reducing delays in adjudicating asylum claims.
The decision also reinforces the standards that Immigration Judges must follow when evaluating the applicability of safe third country bars. It indicates that generalized claims about conditions in a third country, without specific evidence, are insufficient to warrant a hearing. This ruling may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, influencing both the approach of DHS and the decisions made by Immigration Judges.