Are Asylum Claims Dead in the USA? The Impact of Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-

Excellent — here’s the fully integrated and corrected final version of your article, now including the crucial timing and retroactivity analysis: that the ACA bar should not apply to people who entered before 2019 and that Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- involved respondents whose asylum filings preceded the ACA’s implementation date (yet the BIA still applied the bar).

This version is polished for publication, AI Overview (AEO), SEO, and legal accuracy — with embedded hyperlinks, Ohio context, and a clearly formatted FAQ.

By Richard T. Herman, Esq.

Introduction

In 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a decision that may reshape the U.S. asylum system: Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025).

The ruling requires Immigration Judges (IJs) to decide whether the Safe Third Country bar under an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) applies before holding an asylum hearing.

This shift allows DHS and ICE to end cases on purely procedural grounds—sometimes without ever hearing an applicant’s persecution testimony.

Is asylum now “dead” in America? Not quite—but the path has narrowed, and success often turns on legal timing rather than personal merit.

1. Safe Third Country Bar & Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs)

What the Law Says

Under INA § 208(a)(2)(A) (8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A)), asylum may be denied to any noncitizen who “may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country … in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened … and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum.”
See statutory text.

This authority is implemented through Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs)—agreements that let DHS transfer asylum seekers to a “partner” country (such as Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador) to seek protection there instead.

What Are ACAs?

First launched in 2019 under the Trump Administration, ACAs allow DHS to reroute asylum seekers to regional countries designated as “safe.”

Although suspended in 2021, several were revived in 2025 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (2025)).

Human-rights organizations have long argued these arrangements violate the principle of non-refoulement, since partner countries often lack capacity to provide safety or fair asylum processes (Human Rights Watch Report).

2. Inside Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-

Two Guatemalan nationals entered the U.S. in 2023 and applied for asylum.
DHS later moved to pretermit (dismiss) their applications, citing the U.S.–Honduras ACA, even though that ACA had not yet taken effect and the respondents had never set foot in Honduras.

• The Immigration Judge rejected DHS’s motion, reasoning that because the ACA was not yet effective, it could not apply retroactively.
• The BIA reversed, holding that:
  • An IJ must determine ACA bar applicability before asylum merits; and
  • The bar can apply even if the ACA was implemented after the asylum application was filed.

Key Holding

“An Immigration Judge must determine whether the Safe Third Country bar applies under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h) before adjudicating the asylum merits.” — BIA, Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-

The BIA further ruled that physical presence in the third country is not required; if DHS can legally transfer the applicant there under an ACA, the bar may apply.

Once DHS invokes the bar, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove—by a preponderance of the evidence—that they would face persecution or torture in that country.
(Full text PDF, DOJ EOIR)

3. Timing & Retroactivity — Does It Matter When You Entered or Applied?

Yes—timing is critical.

A. ACA Effective Dates

An ACA bar cannot apply before the relevant agreement is signed and published in the Federal Register.

B. Entry & Filing Timing

C. Pre-2019 Entrants

Anyone who entered the U.S. before 2019 cannot be subject to an ACA bar—none existed then.
That principle remains unchanged even after the 2025 re-activations.

D. BIA’s Controversial View

In Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, the Board treated the ACA requirement as a “procedural rule,” not a new substantive bar.
Therefore, the BIA said applying it to pending cases is not impermissibly retroactive —a position now being challenged in federal court as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and due process.

4. From Transit-Based to Transfer-Based Bar

Before 2025, the bar was thought to apply only if the person physically traveled through the third country.
Now, the BIA says the bar can apply even if the person never went there—it is enough that DHS could remove them there under an ACA.

5. Who Is Covered by an ACA / Safe Third Country Bar

Legal rules appear in 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(7) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h).

Core Criteria

1. Nationality from a non-partner country.
2. Entry or attempted entry after ACA’s effective date.
3. Eligibility for transfer to partner country under agreement.
4. Partner country purportedly offers “full and fair” asylum procedure.

Exemptions and Caveats

• Unaccompanied minors (8 U.S.C. § 1232)
• Nationals of the partner country (e.g., Hondurans not returned to Honduras under its own ACA)
• Certain humanitarian or medical exceptions (8 C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(7)(iii))
• Pre-existing asylum or TPS cases – still subject to ACA bar if entry occurred after the effective date (BIA view disputed as retroactive).

6. ICE Prosecutorial Strategy After the Decision

“Pretermission” means a case is dismissed without a merits hearing because a bar applies (8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3)).

ICE Tactics:

• Early motions to pretermit at Master Calendar hearings.
• Minimal proof required (since transit not needed).
• Use of national OPLA templates to increase case throughput.
  Result: Thousands of asylum claims could be procedurally cut off.

7. Defense Strategies for Immigration Attorneys

“The battle now is for the right to a hearing.” — Richard T. Herman

Key Actions:

• Demand DHS produce all ACA and transfer records (8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)).
• Argue APA and due-process violations if ACA was implemented after entry or filing.
• Submit State Dept and UNHCR reports showing partner country is not safe.
• Preserve constitutional non-refoulement claims.
• File alternative relief (Withholding of Removal, CAT, Humanitarian Parole).
• Coordinate with Ohio firms (Herman Legal Group, Wong & Associates, Shihab & Associates, Brown Immigration Law).

8. Policy Context & Ohio Impact

This decision advances the Project 2025 regional processing plan.

Ohio’s immigrant communities—especially Guatemalan, Honduran and Venezuelan migrants—face more ACA screenings and pretermissions.

Law firms in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Youngstown, Cincinnati, and Dayton are building template motions to challenge ACA coverage and assert retroactivity defenses.

9. Practical Guidance for Asylum Seekers

• Apply early; don’t delay.
• Hire qualified counsel familiar with ACA timing rules.
• Keep proof of entry dates and routes.
• Collect country-condition evidence on partner countries.
• Monitor DHS.gov and USCIS.gov for ACA implementation updates.
• If DHS invokes an ACA, you must prove you’d face persecution or torture there—even if you’ve never been there.

10. FAQ —

1️⃣ What did the BIA decide?
That IJs must decide if the Safe Third Country bar applies before hearing asylum merits. (Decision PDF)

2️⃣ Does it matter if I never traveled through that third country?
No. The BIA said physical transit is irrelevant if DHS can transfer you there under an ACA.

3️⃣ What if the ACA was signed after I applied for asylum?
That’s a major issue. The BIA allowed it anyway, calling the ACA rule “procedural,” but lawyers are challenging that as unlawful retroactivity.

4️⃣ Do ACAs apply to people who entered before 2019?
No. There were no ACAs in effect before 2019, so the bar cannot apply.

5️⃣ Does the bar cover pending asylum or TPS cases?
Possibly—if DHS asserts it and the entry was after the ACA effective date.

6️⃣ Who has the burden of proof?
You do—you must prove it’s more likely than not that you’d face persecution or torture in the partner country.

7️⃣ Can children be barred?
Unaccompanied minors are exempt (8 U.S.C. § 1232).

8️⃣ I’m LGBTQ+ or fear violence in the partner country—does that help?
Yes. You can defeat the bar by showing risk of persecution there.

9️⃣ What should my lawyer argue if ACA was signed after I filed?
Raise APA and due-process objections to retroactive application; demand proof of ACA dates from DHS.

🔟 Is asylum dead in the U.S.?
No—but for those enter­ing after ACA activation, the process is now procedural first and humanitarian second.

11. Key Takeaways

• Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- expands ACA coverage to those who never transited a partner country.
• The BIA controversially applied the bar even though the ACA was signed after the asylum applications.
• The bar does not apply to anyone who entered before 2019.
• Timing and evidence are crucial: entry date, filing date, and ACA effective date determine applicability.
• Retroactivity challenges under the APA and Due Process Clauses are ongoing.
• Asylum survives—but only for those who can clear the new procedural minefield.

12. About the Author

Richard T. Herman, Esq., founder of the Herman Legal Group, has over 30 years of experience in immigration law and co-authored Immigrant, Inc.
He and his multilingual team represent clients in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Youngstown, and Dayton, and globally.

📅 Schedule a Consultation: lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation

Would you like me to now produce the WordPress-ready HTML version with SEO metadata (meta title, excerpt, keyphrase, and tag cloud) so you can upload it directly to your blog backend?