A-C-M-

page
703
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4207
Matter of A-C-M-, Respondent
Decided June 17, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
When an alien is subject to an asylum cooperative agreement (“ACA”) and the record is
devoid of evidence showing the alien faces an individualized risk of harm in the ACA
country of removal, it is generally unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve
the applicability of the safe third country bar to asylum. Matter of C-I-G M- & L-V-S-G-,
29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025), followed.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: David Cantor, Assistant Chief
Counsel
BEFORE: 	Board Panel: 	OWEN, GALLOW, and HANSELL, Appellate Immigration
Judges.
OWEN, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security 	(“DHS”) 	has 	filed 	an
interlocutory appeal from the Immigration Judge’s August 26, 2025, decision
denying its motion to pretermit the respondent’s applications for asylum
under section 208(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A) (2018), withholding of removal under section
241(b)(3)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2018), and protection
under 	the 	regulations 	implementing 	the 	Convention 	Against 	Torture
(“CAT”).1 	The respondent, who is represented by counsel before the
Immigration Judge, has not filed a response to DHS’ appeal. The appeal will
be sustained, and the record will be remanded to the Immigration Court.
In its motion, DHS sought pretermission of the respondent’s applications
because she is subject to the safe third country bar to asylum under section
208(a)(2)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A) (2018), as implemented
by 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h) (2026). We recently discussed this bar to asylum
eligibility and provided guidance on the proper application of the regulation
1 	The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into
force for United States on Nov. 20, 1994). 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17 (2026);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (2020).

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4207
page
704
in Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2025). Although
the Board does not ordinarily entertain interlocutory appeals, we deem it
appropriate to do so here to correct the recurring misapplication of 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.11(h) and Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- by Immigration Judges.
See Matter of M-D-, 24 I&N Dec. 138, 139 (BIA 2007) (noting that it is
appropriate 	to 	entertain 	an 	interlocutory 	appeal 	“to 	correct 	recurring
problems in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges”). 	Whether the
facts establish that the safe third country bar to asylum applies is a legal
question we review de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2026); Matter
of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. at 293.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The respondent is a native and citizen of Cuba who illegally entered the
United States without inspection on August 8, 2021. 	DHS served the
respondent with a notice to appear the following day and commenced
removal proceedings against her by filing the notice to appear with the
Immigration 	Court. 	The 	respondent 	filed 	an 	application 	for 	asylum,
withholding, and CAT protection before the Immigration Judge on April 16,
2022. 	DHS filed a motion to pretermit the respondent’s application on
August 7, 2025, arguing that she is ineligible to apply for asylum and related
protection because she may be removed to Ecuador for consideration of those
claims pursuant to an asylum cooperative agreement (“ACA”) between the
United States and Ecuador.2
The respondent filed a response in opposition to DHS’ motion in which
she argued that (1) DHS waived the pretermission issue; (2) DHS had not
shown that Ecuador would accept her; (3) DHS had not shown that Ecuador
would provide a full and fair procedure for adjudicating her protection
claims; (4) there is generalized violence in Ecuador; (5) she arrived in the
United States and applied for asylum before the ACA with Ecuador was
signed; (6) it is in the public interest for her to be granted asylum in the
United States; and (7) she has established a prima facie case for withholding
of removal to Ecuador under the INA and CAT because “Ecuador is a Cuban
sympathizing 	country 	that 	persecutes 	Cuban[] 	desertors 	[sic].” 	Her
opposition was accompanied by generalized country conditions evidence of
2 	The United States and Ecuador entered into an ACA on July 23, 2025, which was
published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2025. See Agreement Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of
Ecuador Relating to the Transfer of Third-Country Nationals to Ecuador, 90 Fed. Reg.
51376 (Nov. 17, 2025); see also Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. at 293–94
(discussing the application of ACAs in removal proceedings).

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4207
page
705
violence in Ecuador. She did not present any evidence that she has ever been
to Ecuador.
The 	Immigration 	Judge 	denied 	DHS’ 	motion 	to 	pretermit 	without
prejudice. 	Purporting to rely on Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, the
Immigration Judge determined that she was “precluded” from pretermitting
the respondent’s asylum and protection applications without first conducting
an evidentiary hearing “to resolve disputed facts.” 	The Immigration Judge
further stated that conducting an evidentiary hearing in a master calendar
setting would be inappropriate because she has limited time to do so on her
master calendar docket. The Immigration Judge set an individual hearing on
the applicability of the ACA bar for March 19, 2030.
II. DISCUSSION
In Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, we explained that when a respondent
claims that the safe third country bar to asylum eligibility should not apply
based on a claim of future persecution or torture in the ACA country of
removal, an evidentiary hearing must be held only if “necessary to resolve
disputed facts.” 29 I&N Dec. at 296; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(h)(2)(iii)
(providing that an alien otherwise subject to an ACA is eligible to apply for
asylum in the United States if the alien demonstrates that it is more likely
than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground
or tortured in the ACA country). 	We further explained that when a
respondent making such a claim “has no substantial connection to that
country, an Immigration Judge should typically be able to resolve the
applicability 	of 	the 	safe 	third 	country 	bar 	without 	conducting 	a 	full
evidentiary hearing.” Id. Expeditious consideration of the safe third country
bar is necessary to promote the primary purpose of the ACA regulation,
which is to establish “a threshold screening to determine whether an alien is
barred from applying for asylum in the United States pursuant to an ACA.”
Id. 	(quoting Implementing Bilateral and Multilateral Asylum Cooperative
Agreements Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 84 Fed. Reg. 63994,
63998 (Nov. 19, 2019) (interim rule)).
The Immigration Judge erred in determining that it is necessary to
conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts relevant to the safe
third country bar in this case. 	The respondent’s waiver argument raises a
legal question and there is no dispute regarding the facts underlying her
waiver 	argument. 	See 	Biscayne 	Beach 	Club 	Condo. 	Ass’n, 	Inc. 	v.
Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 111 F.4th 1182, 1185–86 (11th Cir.
2024) (explaining that waiver is a legal issue). The Immigration Judge lacks
jurisdiction to consider the respondent’s arguments regarding Ecuador’s

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4207
page
706
willingness to receive her, the availability of full and fair procedures in
Ecuador, and any public interest in allowing her to seek asylum in the United
States. 	See Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. at 295 n.4, 298.
And the fact that the ACA with Ecuador was implemented after the
respondent entered the United States and applied for asylum here does not
raise any retroactivity concerns. Id. at 298.
Furthermore, 	the 	“generalized 	evidence 	of 	country 	conditions 	in
[Ecuador] submitted with [the respondent’s] response to DHS’ motion is
clearly 	insufficient 	to 	satisfy 	the 	burden 	of 	proof” 	under 	8 	C.F.R.
§ 1240.11(h)(2)(iii) to show that it is more likely than not that she would be
persecuted on account of a protected ground or tortured there. 	Matter of
C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. at 297. Her vague claim that “Ecuador
is a Cuban sympathizing country that persecutes” Cuban deserters is not
supported by any record evidence and is insufficient to create a genuine
factual dispute.3 See Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005)
(per curiam) (“For factual issues to be considered genuine, they must have a
real basis in the record. . . . For instance, mere conclusions and unsupported
factual allegations are legally insufficient to [raise genuine issues of fact].”
(citations omitted)).
When, as here, an alien is subject to an ACA and the record is devoid of
evidence showing the alien faces an individualized risk of harm in the ACA
country of removal, it is generally unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing
to resolve the applicability of the safe third country bar to asylum. See Matter
of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. at 296 (“Because a respondent will
generally have no substantial connection to the relevant third country,
evaluating a respondent’s claim of future persecution or torture in the third
country ‘is more straightforward’ than undertaking ‘a complex assessment’
of an asylum applicant’s fear of persecution in his or her home country.”
(quoting 	84 	Fed 	Reg. 	at 	64004)). 	Under 	such 	circumstances, 	if 	an
Immigration Judge believes there is not enough time to resolve the ACA
issue during an abbreviated hearing in a master calendar setting, the
Immigration Judge should do so in a written order based on the documentary
evidence and arguments presented by the parties.
3 	This claim seems dubious considering that Ecuador recently expelled Cuba’s entire
diplomatic mission. See Cuba shuts its Quito embassy as Ecuador expels its diplomats,
Associated 	Press 	(Mar. 	6, 	2026), 	https://apnews.com/article/ecuador-cuba-embassy-
noboa-diezcanel-d0bd76fa4679c657c8d9ea29e8118e9c. 	We may take administrative
notice of current events. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A)(1).

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4207
page
707
III. CONCLUSION
The Immigration Judge erred in determining it was necessary to hold an
evidentiary hearing prior to determining whether the safe third country bar
applies in this case because the record does not raise any genuine factual
dispute that can only be resolved after taking testimony. Moreover, even if
a 	hearing 	were 	to 	be 	necessary 	to 	resolve 	some 	factual 	dispute, 	the
Immigration Judge’s setting of the case for a hearing on the motion to
pretermit nearly 5 years later was unreasonable. 	The ACA pretermission
issue should be addressed before scheduling an individual hearing. We will
therefore sustain DHS’ appeal and remand the record for the Immigration
Judge to expeditiously determine whether the safe third country bar applies
in this case. 	The Immigration Judge may do so either by written order or
during a promptly scheduled master calendar hearing after considering the
evidence and arguments presented by the parties.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The record is remanded to the Immigration
Court for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for
the entry of a new decision.