Asylum Cooperative Agreements: How DHS Is Blocking Cases and What You Can Do
If you have a pending asylum case, you may have recently received a notice from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claiming your case should be sent to a third country — not the United States, and not the country you fled. These motions are based on Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs), and DHS is filing them in cases across Virginia, Maryland, and the rest of the country. Here is what you need to know — and why speaking with an immigration attorney in Virginia or Maryland as soon as possible could make all the difference.
What Is an Asylum Cooperative Agreement?
An ACA is a treaty between the United States and another country to share responsibility for processing asylum claims. Under U.S. law, if the government can send you to a country where your life or freedom would not be threatened, it can bar you from applying for asylum here. The ACA is the legal tool that triggers that bar. It’s also often called the “safe third country” bar.
The U.S. now has ACA-type agreements with more than two dozen countries. In Virginia and Maryland immigration courts, we are predominantly seeing motions filed under agreements with Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador, and Uganda. These agreements vary significantly. The El Salvador agreement, for instance, is an incarceration arrangement — transferred individuals are imprisoned in El Salvador’s CECOT facility. The others send people to third countries to apply for protection there. Uganda’s agreement, signed April 30, 2025, is notable as one of the first on the African continent.
What Is a Motion to Pretermit?
When DHS believes an ACA applies to you, it files a “motion to pretermit” — asking the Immigration Judge to dismiss your asylum application before it is ever heard on the merits. In October 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025), which gave judges clear authority to grant these motions and directed that they be decided first, before anything else in your case. Courts can now handle these in abbreviated hearings — often at master calendar — without a full evidentiary hearing.
If pretermission is granted, you are not immediately sent to your home country. You are ordered removed to the ACA country, where you would be expected to seek protection under that country’s laws.
What Can You Do?
The bar is not automatic. You can fight it — but the burden is on you, and the standard is demanding. You must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, one of the following:
- The ACA does not apply to you (for example, you are a national of the ACA country itself, or an unaccompanied minor);
- You qualify for a specific listed exception under the agreement; or
- You would more likely than not be persecuted or tortured in the third country. This requires specific, individualized evidence — not just general country reports. Courts have been clear that generalized evidence of poor conditions is not enough.
Procedural arguments also matter. If DHS filed its motion after a court-ordered deadline, that untimeliness is grounds to oppose it. And even if an IJ grants pretermission, both parties have 30 days to appeal to the BIA. This area of law is actively developing.
What We Are Seeing in Court
Immigration Judges are currently granting these motions at a high rate, often in abbreviated proceedings. That said, outcomes vary — and these motions can be defeated. Cases with detailed, individualized sworn declarations fare far better than those relying on country reports alone. We have successfully obtained continuances to develop the record and have preserved important legal arguments for appeal, including challenges to retroactive application and to the scope of the ACA bar as it relates to withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
In one recent case, we successfully challenged DHS’s motion to pretermit under the Uganda ACA on behalf of a Haitian client by arguing that the Uganda agreement did not apply to him based on his nationality. After the court ordered DHS to respond to that argument, DHS failed to do so — and the court deemed the motion abandoned. Our client’s case was set for a full merits hearing. That outcome is a reminder that the first question is always whether the specific ACA invoked actually applies to your client — and that DHS does not always get that right.
If you receive one of these motions, act immediately. There are strict deadlines. Contact an immigration attorney as soon as possible.
How Amaryllis Law Can Help
We are actively litigating ACA motions as asylum lawyers in Virginia, D.C., and Maryland and are experienced with the Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador, and Uganda agreements. Whether your hearing is in Sterling, Hyattsville, Baltimore, or another immigration court in the region, we know how these motions are being handled and how to fight them.
If you or someone you know has received a motion to pretermit — or has a pending asylum case — please reach out as soon as possible. Time matters.
Amaryllis Law | Salem, Virginia | (540) 387-1005 | www.amaryllislawfirm.com
This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.
Written By Maggie Riley
Maggie Riley is an immigration advocate who is essential to Amaryllis Law’s removal team. She manages cases such as asylum, cancellation of removal, and bond defense. She also assists in affirmative interviews for asylum, family based immigration remedies, and naturalization.
Maggie Riley is licensed to practice law in Washington State. She earned a B.A. in English Language and Literature with a minor in French, and a J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law with a concentration in International and Comparative Law.