RAICES Bulletin: BIA Accelerates Removals to Third Countries
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR In Matter of A-C-M- (2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that an Immigration Judge (IJ) generally does not need to hold live evidentiary hearings for Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) third-country removals if no evidence of individualized risk is presented. This ruling severely restricts due process and accelerates deportations, requiring legal representatives to proactively gather detailed, individualized evidence early in the process to prevent rapid, paper-based dismissals.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: In Matter of A-C-M- (2026), the BIA held that an IJ generally does not need to hold an evidentiary hearing for an individual subject to an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) third-country removal if no evidence of individualized risk is presented.
Rationale: The BIA ruled that ACA bars should generally be decided on the papers, reserving live hearings strictly for genuine disputes of material fact. It concluded that generalized country conditions and unsupported assertions fail to meet the "more likely than not" burden of proof. Additionally, the BIA held that IJs lack jurisdiction to review a partner country's asylum procedures, willingness to accept a noncitizen, or public interest exceptions, directing IJs to issue prompt written orders if docket time is limited.
RAICES Impact: For RAICES clients in removal or expedited removal proceedings, this ruling increases the risk of rapid, paper-based dismissals without live testimony. By foreclosing challenges to a partner country's procedures or willingness to accept individuals, the decision severely restricts due process. To prevent summary denials, when possible, legal representatives should seek to gather and present highly detailed, individualized evidence showing why the third country poses a risk to the client.
Community Impact: This decision will likely accelerate the forced deportation of asylum seekers to third countries where they may have no connection or face potential harm, blocking asylum access by denying them an opportunity to be heard. By prioritizing administrative speed over full merits development, the ruling disproportionately harms unrepresented noncitizens who lose the chance to build their record verbally.
Related Legal Battles: This decision expands the restrictive framework established in Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- (2025). While no active federal court challenges are currently identified, a future appeal may be possible.
Broader Immigration Strategy: Signaling a sustained administrative restriction of asylum protections, this decision requires practitioners to adapt. Legal representatives should focus on building fact-intensive records early in the process to counter claims that no individualized risk exists, while continuing to highlight the systemic erosion of due process.
