Asylum Cooperation Agreements vs. Safe Third Country Agreements: What Is the Difference?

By Wendy R. Barlow, Esq. | Partner at Cohen, Tucker + Ades Specializing in Federal Litigation and Deportation Defense

A Safe Third Country Agreement (like the U.S.-Canada pact) requires migrants to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. An Asylum Cooperation Agreement (ACA) allows the U.S. to remove asylum seekers to a third-party country to process their claims there, regardless of whether they applied for asylum during transit.

In the complex world of U.S. immigration policy, terminology matters. Two terms often used in tandem—Asylum Cooperation Agreements (ACAs) and Safe Third Country Agreements (STCAs)—actually represent different legal frameworks with distinct implications for asylum seekers.

At Cohen, Tucker + Ades, we believe that understanding these nuances is the first step in building a strong legal defense. Below, we clarify these differences and explore why they are currently a focal point of immigration litigation.

1. The Core Distinction: Responsibility vs. Removal

While both frameworks involve a third country, the legal “mechanics” differ significantly:

What is a Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)?

An STCA is a formal treaty between two nations with comparable, robust asylum systems (most notably the U.S.-Canada Agreement).

• The Logic: It dictates that a person must apply for protection in the first safe country they arrive in.

• The Result: If you arrive at the U.S. border from Canada, the U.S. can generally refuse to hear your claim because you already had the opportunity to seek safety in a peer-level system.

What is an Asylum Cooperation Agreement (ACA)?

An ACA is a more recent, controversial administrative tool. Unlike the STCA, ACAs are often established with countries that may not have developed asylum infrastructures.

• The Logic: These are “burden-sharing” agreements where the U.S. pays or provides resources to another country to take in asylum seekers.

• The Result: Rather than simply saying “you should have applied there first,” an ACA allows the U.S. to actively remove you to a third country (like Guatemala or Honduras) to begin an asylum process there, even if you never intended to visit that country.

2. Who Do These Agreements Apply To?

The applicability of these agreements depends heavily on the “transit route” of the individual:

• STCAs apply almost exclusively to those crossing at a Port of Entry between two highly developed nations (U.S. and Canada).

• ACAs are designed to target the Southern Border. They apply to migrants who have traveled through “Transit Countries” in Central America. Under an ACA, a person from a third nation (e.g., a person from Brazil) could be sent to Guatemala to seek asylum there, despite having no ties to that nation.

3. Major Concerns and Legal Challenges

The distinction between these two is at the heart of many lawsuits handled by firms like Cohen, Tucker + Ades. The primary concerns include:

The “Safety” Discrepancy

The biggest criticism of ACAs is that they treat nations with high rates of violence and limited legal resources as “safe.” While Canada is universally recognized as having a “full and fair” asylum process, many argue that sending a vulnerable person to a Northern Triangle country under an ACA violates the principle of Non-Refoulement (the prohibition against returning refugees to danger).

Lack of Due Process

ACAs often involve “expedited removal” processes. Asylum seekers are frequently screened without the presence of an attorney, and the standard for proving they are “more likely than not” to be persecuted in the third country is incredibly high and difficult to meet in a border setting.

4. Why This Matters for Your Case

If you are entering the U.S. to seek protection, which agreement you fall under—or whether an agreement is currently being enforced—can change the entire trajectory of your case. These policies are frequently paused or reinstated by executive orders and federal court injunctions.

How Cohen, Tucker + Ades Can Assist

Navigating the overlap between ACAs and STCAs requires a deep understanding of federal immigration statutes and international human rights law. Our team provides:

• Threshold Screening Preparation: Helping you prepare for the initial interviews that determine if you can stay in the U.S.

• Litigation Support: Challenging improper removals based on invalid cooperation agreements.

• Strategic Advocacy: Ensuring your claim is heard in the jurisdiction where you have the best chance of success.

If you or a family member are navigating the asylum process, do not face it alone. Contact Cohen, Tucker + Ades today for a consultation.