April 9, 2026

Asylum Cooperative Agreements: How DHS Is Blocking Cases and What You Can Do?

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

Do you have a pending asylum case? Have you received a motion from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stating that your case should be transferred to a third country, rather than the United States or your country of origin?

These motions are based on Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs), and DHS is filing them in cases across New York, New Jersey, and the rest of the country. Here is what you need to know—and why speaking with an immigration attorney at Cohen, Tucker + Ades as soon as possible could make all the difference.

What Is an Asylum Cooperative Agreement?

An Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) is a formal treaty between the United States and a partner nation designed to share the responsibility of processing asylum claims.

Under U.S. immigration law, the government can bar individuals from applying for asylum in the United States if they can be safely relocated to a partner country. This legal mechanism is commonly known as the “safe third country” bar. The ACA serves as the legal tool that triggers this restriction, provided the individual’s life or freedom would not be threatened in that third country.

Current Trends in ACA Immigration Proceedings

While the U.S. has established ACA-style frameworks with over two dozen nations, enforcement patterns vary. Currently, immigration court motions are predominantly citing agreements involving the following countries:

Guatemala
Honduras
El Salvador
Ecuador
Uganda

What is a Motion to Pretermit in Immigration Court?

A Motion to Pretermit is a legal request filed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asking an Immigration Judge to dismiss an asylum application without a full trial. This motion is typically filed when DHS believes an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA)—or “Safe Third Country” rule—applies to the applicant.

Key Effects of Pretermission:

Procedural Shortcut: The judge can deny the asylum claim based on legal eligibility before hearing the “merits” (the specific facts and testimony) of the case.
Case Dismissal: If the motion is granted, the asylum seeker is barred from pursuing their claim within the United States.

Landmark Ruling: Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- (2025)

In October 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedential decision in Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025). This ruling fundamentally changed how ACA cases are handled in immigration court.

The BIA ruling established two critical mandates:

Judicial Authority: Immigration Judges (IJs) have explicit authority to grant motions to pretermit asylum applications based on third-country agreements.
Prioritization: Judges are directed to decide these motions first, before addressing any other aspects of the individual’s immigration case.

Under this ruling, courts may now resolve these motions during abbreviated hearings, such as a Master Calendar Hearing, rather than requiring a full evidentiary trial.

What Can You Do to Fight Back?

The bar is not automatic, but the burden is on you to prove it shouldn’t apply. To defeat a motion to pretermit, you must show by a preponderance of the evidence that:

The ACA does not apply to you: For example, you are a national of the ACA country itself, or you are an unaccompanied minor.
You qualify for a specific exception: Every agreement has unique listed exceptions.
You face persecution or torture in the third country: You must prove it is “more likely than not” that you would be harmed in the country DHS wants to send you to. This requires specific, individualized evidence—general reports on “poor conditions” are rarely enough.

What We Are Seeing in Court

Immigration Judges are currently granting these motions at a high rate. However, at Cohen, Tucker + Ades, we have seen that these motions can be defeated. Cases supported by detailed, individualized sworn declarations fare significantly better than those relying on generic information.

Absolutely. Adding a dedicated service section is a great way to transition from the technical legal explanation to a clear call-to-action (CTA). This helps prospective clients understand exactly what value the firm brings to their specific crisis.

How Cohen, Tucker + Ades Can Protect Your Rights

The introduction of Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- has turned asylum cases into a “race against time.” When DHS files a motion to pretermit, the window to respond is narrow, and the legal standard is incredibly high. At Cohen, Tucker + Ades, we provide the aggressive, sophisticated defense required to keep your case on track.

Our firm assists clients facing ACA-related challenges by:

Analyzing Nationality and Agreement Scope: We meticulously audit whether the specific agreement DHS is citing actually applies to your country of origin or legal status.
Developing Individualized Evidence: We move beyond generic country reports. We work with you to draft detailed, sworn declarations and gather specific evidence to prove that the “safe third country” is, in fact, not safe for you.
Challenging Procedural Errors: We hold DHS accountable for deadlines. If a motion is filed late or improperly, we fight to have it dismissed on procedural grounds before the judge even considers the merits.
Preserving Arguments for Appeal: If an Immigration Judge grants a pretermission motion, we are prepared to immediately appeal to the BIA, challenging the retroactive application of these agreements and protecting your rights under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
National Representation: While these motions are surging in Virginia and Maryland, our reach is national. We represent clients across the country, ensuring they have access to elite legal counsel regardless of where their hearing is held.

Meet Wendy R. Barlow, Esq.

Partner at Cohen, Tucker + Ades, P.C.

Wendy R. Barlow is a Partner at Cohen, Tucker + Ades and a powerhouse in the field of immigration litigation. With over 20 years of experience, Wendy specializes in defending individuals in removal proceedings and handling complex federal appeals.

Admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals, and multiple Federal District Courts, Wendy has the jurisdictional reach to fight DHS motions nationwide. She is a dedicated member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and is known for her strategic approach to the “safe third country” bar and other evolving DHS policies.

Education:

J.D., Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
B.A., University of Delaware (Political Science and Women’s Studies)

Wendy’s practice is built on the belief that every immigrant deserves a fair hearing. Whether navigating the Board of Immigration Appeals or challenging a motion to pretermit, she provides the rigorous, individualized defense necessary in today’s legal climate.

If you receive a motion to pretermit, you must act immediately. There are strict deadlines that could permanently impact your safety. Contact Cohen, Tucker + Ades today to discuss your case with our experienced legal team.

About the Author

Wendy R. Barlow, Esq. is a Partner at Cohen, Tucker + Ades, P.C. with nearly 20 years of experience in high-stakes immigration litigation. A graduate of the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Wendy is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey as well as before the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple Federal Circuit Courts. Wendy is recognized for her ability to handle cases that many consider insurmountable.

Need assistance with an Asylum Cooperation Agreement case? Click here to schedule a consultation with Wendy.

Disclaimer: This blog post contains general information and is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Cohen, Tucker + Ades P.C. Immigration laws and fee schedules are subject to frequent change. The information provided herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act or refrain from acting based on information contained in this post without seeking professional counsel from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Cohen, Tucker + Ades P.C. expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this post.

Sources:

Federal Register | Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests

Federal Register | Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Relating to the Transfer of Nationals of Central American Countries to Guatemala

Federal Register | Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of El Salvador for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Claims

Federal Register |Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Uganda for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests

Board of Immigration Appeals | Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, Interim Decision #4137 (BIA 2025)