Safe Third Country Rules in 2026: When Another Country's Protection Blocks Your US Asylum Claim

If you have an asylum case pending in immigration court, the biggest threat to it in 2026 may not be the merits of your claim. It may be a motion to end your case before you testify, because the United States signed an agreement with a country you have never seen.

The Motions Ending Asylum Cases Before They Are Heard

For twenty years, "safe third country" meant the agreement with Canada. That is no longer the story. During 2025 and 2026 the United States signed new agreements with countries in Central America, South America and Africa, and began invoking them not at the border but inside immigration court, against people already living here whose cases have been pending for years.

The vehicle is a motion to pretermit, which asks the judge to deny an asylum application without reaching the merits, without testimony, and without a hearing on what happened to you. According to reporting by Mission Local, the government filed more than 17,000 such motions nationwide in January 2026, against roughly 60 in January 2025. That reporting also describes a March 12, 2026 directive pausing new agreement-based filings, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies has reported filings resumed in May 2026. Neither appeared in a published government document, so both are reported rather than confirmed.

A client can do everything right and still lose the chance to present it. The defense must be built before the motion is filed, which is the work of our removal defense practice.

Three Different Bars, Three Different Questions

Summaries blur three separate rules that do different damage. The safe third country bar at INA 208(a)(2)(A), codified at 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(A), says the right to apply for asylum does not apply where the government determines you may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country where your life or freedom would not be threatened and where you would have access to a full and fair asylum procedure. Without an agreement there is no safe third country bar, and transiting a country does not create one.

The firm resettlement bar at INA 208(b)(2)(A)(vi) and 8 C.F.R. 208.15 asks instead whether you already received an offer of permanent status elsewhere before arriving. See our post on the firm resettlement bar to asylum. The transit and entry based bars were never treaties. They were rules, and the two most significant are unenforceable right now.

Which Agreements Actually Exist as of August 2026

This list changed repeatedly during 2025 and 2026 and may change again. As of August 2026, per the Federal Register:

• Canada. In force since December 29, 2004. The Additional Protocol of 2022 took effect March 25, 2023, extending it across the entire land border, including crossings between ports of entry where a claim is made within 14 days.
• Honduras. Signed March 10, 2025, at 90 Fed. Reg. 30076 (July 8, 2025), and amended by diplomatic notes exchanged June 25, 2025 that removed the original limit to people who arrived on or after the agreement took effect. Like Belize, its own text conditions entry into force on an exchange of notes confirming each country completed its internal legal procedures, and no such notice has been published.
• Guatemala. Diplomatic notes of June 11 and 13, 2025, at 90 Fed. Reg. 31670 (July 15, 2025), titled a transfer agreement.
• Uganda. Signed July 29, 2025, at 90 Fed. Reg. 42597 (September 3, 2025). Its text enters into force upon signature.
• Ecuador. Diplomatic notes of July 16 and 23, 2025, at 90 Fed. Reg. 51376 (November 17, 2025), published November 17, 2025. Paraguay. Signed August 14, 2025, at 90 Fed. Reg. 60114 (December 23, 2025).
• Belize. Signed October 20, 2025, at 91 Fed. Reg. 12204 (March 12, 2026). Its text conditions entry into force on a later exchange of notes that has not been published.

El Salvador is not on this list. The 2019 agreements with all three countries were suspended and wound down in 2021. Guatemala and Honduras have new 2025 instruments; El Salvador does not.

Withholding and CAT: The Part Most Summaries Get Wrong

This is where nearly every online explainer is wrong. You will read that no matter which asylum bar applies, withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) and Convention Against Torture protection always remain available. For firm resettlement that is true. For the safe third country bar, as the government currently applies it, it is not.

8 C.F.R. 1240.11(h)(2) provides that a person subject to one of these agreements is ineligible to apply for asylum under section 208(a)(2)(A), or for withholding of removal or CAT protection in the United States, unless the judge makes one of the findings listed in the rule. Subsection (h)(4) states such a person is ineligible to apply for withholding under section 241(b)(3) and the Convention Against Torture notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter.

Be precise about statute versus regulation. The statute removes only the right to apply for asylum. The Department of Justice extended that consequence to withholding and CAT through the 2019 rule at 84 Fed. Reg. 63994. So the government currently applies the agreement bar to block asylum, withholding and CAT together, and that regulatory extension is under challenge in litigation that has not been decided. U.T. v. Blanche is pending in the District of Columbia with no merits ruling, and we will not predict the outcome.

How This Differs From the Firm Resettlement Bar

The two bars are nearly opposite. Firm resettlement looks backward at what you already had; it reaches asylum only, and withholding and CAT survive it. In this Circuit the leading case remains Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001). The safe third country bar looks forward, asks where the government can send you next, requires an agreement, and as applied reaches all three forms of protection. The same client can lose far more under an agreement based bar.

Did DHS file a motion to pretermit your asylum case?

These motions are often decided on the papers, without an evidentiary hearing. The evidence you put in the record now is the case. Consultations by phone or Google Meet. Hablamos español.

Schedule a Consultation

Or call (484) 763-4984

The Standard You Must Meet, and Why It Is Hard

Under 8 C.F.R. 208.30(e)(7) and 1240.11(h)(2)(iii), and under Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025), the burden sits on you. You must show by a preponderance that it is more likely than not you would be persecuted on a protected ground or tortured in the agreement country, not your home country.

A Nicaraguan woman may be fully able to prove persecution in Nicaragua. If the government designates Honduras and she cannot prove she would more likely than not be persecuted or tortured there, she is barred. The inquiry is redirected to a country she may have no tie to, which is why our guidance on documenting country conditions now applies to a second country.

C-I-G-M- holds the judge decides the agreement question before and separately from the merits. Matter of A-C-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026), holds a hearing is generally unnecessary absent evidence of individualized risk there, and Matter of E-A-R-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2026), holds an oral motion is sufficient notice. Expect no hearing and little warning.

Third-Country Removal Is a Different Thing Entirely

The safe third country bar decides whether you may apply for asylum. Third-country removal is about where ICE sends someone who already has a removal order, including countries such as South Sudan, Eswatini or Rwanda where the person has no connection at all.

The posture is widely misreported. In D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, a federal court in Massachusetts certified a nationwide class and enjoined the policy on April 18, 2025, requiring notice and a chance to raise fear of the third country. On June 23, 2025 the Supreme Court stayed that injunction. A stay is not a merits ruling; it was a brief order without reasoning, over three dissents. On February 25, 2026 the district court vacated the policy, holding the government must follow the sequence Congress set in 8 U.S.C. 1231(b). On March 16, 2026 the First Circuit stayed that judgment pending appeal. As of August 2026 the First Circuit has issued no merits decision, the stay is operative, and the appeal is pending.

Practically: if an officer names any third country, say out loud, and put in writing, that you fear that country, and request a reasonable fear interview. Do not wait to be offered one.

Screening, Fees, and the Picture in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

At the border, 8 C.F.R. 208.30(e)(6) governs Canada and 208.30(e)(7) the others. Both are threshold screenings that happen before a credible fear interview. Note the asymmetry: 8 C.F.R. 1208.30(g)(2) gives judge review of a negative credible fear finding, but there is no parallel review of the agreement screening.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act created both an initial and a recurring fee. As of August 2026 the amounts are $100 to file Form I-589 and $102 each year it stays pending, effective February 1, 2026 per 91 Fed. Reg. 2561. There is no waiver, and the figures adjust annually. Affirmative filers should also review the 2026 rule on referrals without an interview.

Locally, detained Lehigh Valley clients are typically held at Moshannon Valley, Pike County, or Elizabeth in New Jersey, while non-detained cases go to the Philadelphia Immigration Court. As of August 2026 we found no precedential Third Circuit decision on these agreements, so the Board's framework controls, making preservation of issues for appeal unusually important.

Frequently Asked Questions

I passed through Mexico to get here. Does the safe third country rule block my asylum case?

No. The bar at INA 208(a)(2)(A) requires a bilateral or multilateral agreement, and the United States has no such agreement with Mexico. Transiting a country is not a safe third country bar. The separate transit based rule at 8 C.F.R. 1208.33 was vacated in May 2026 and is unenforceable while the government appeal is pending.

Is this the same as the firm resettlement bar you wrote about on August 5?

No. Firm resettlement asks whether you already had permanent status somewhere before you arrived, and it blocks asylum only, so withholding and CAT survive it. The safe third country bar asks whether the United States can send you now to an agreement country, and under 8 C.F.R. 1240.11(h)(2) and (h)(4) the government currently applies it to block asylum, withholding and CAT together. That regulatory extension is under challenge in litigation that has not been decided.

Which countries have agreements right now?

As of August 2026, Canada since 2004, expanded across the whole land border in March 2023, plus instruments signed during 2025 and 2026 with Honduras, Guatemala, Uganda, Ecuador, Paraguay and Belize. No agreement on this list has a published date of entry into force. El Salvador has no current agreement, and this list has changed repeatedly.

ICE says they might deport me to a country I have never been to. Can they do that?

That is third-country removal, which is different from the safe third country asylum bar and applies after a removal order. A federal court vacated the policy in February 2026, but the First Circuit stayed that ruling in March 2026, so the policy is operating while the appeal proceeds. If an officer names any third country, say out loud and put in writing that you fear that country, and request a reasonable fear interview.

Do I still have to pay the asylum fee if the government is trying to end my case?

Yes. As of August 2026 the fees are $100 to file Form I-589 and $102 for each year it stays pending. There is no fee waiver, and EOIR will reject an immigration court filing postmarked on or after February 1, 2026 that is not accompanied by the proper fee. Nonpayment does not pause while a motion to pretermit is litigated.

Talk to Us Before the Motion Lands

This area changed repeatedly during 2025 and 2026, and everything above is stated as of August 2026. Nothing here predicts any case, and the central questions remain in active litigation. These motions move fast. If you have a pending asylum case, or have been told an agreement country may apply to you, speak with an asylum lawyer in Allentown promptly.

Lehigh Valley Immigration Law offers a free bilingual consultation. Call (484) 763-4984 or reach us through our contact page.