HomeLawyer’s PublicationsAsylumRecent Challenges & Bars to Asylum: ACAs, REAL ID Credibility, and the No-Duress Material/Persecutor Support Bar

Recent Challenges & Bars to Asylum: ACAs, REAL ID Credibility, and the No-Duress Material/Persecutor Support Bar

Recent Challenges & Bars to Asylum: ACAs, REAL ID Credibility, and the No-Duress Material/Persecutor Support Bar

Author: Asylum Lawyer USA Alena Shautsova

As the laws and policies governing asylum in the United States continue to evolve, applicants and their counsel must adapt to three major, interlocking developments:

The expansion of Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs) — bilateral arrangements allowing the U.S. to transfer protection-seekers to third countries, blocking U.S. asylum access.
The increased demands for credibility and verification of evidence under the REAL ID Act and related case-law, including rigid rules for originals, envelopes, and documentary chains.
Recent decisions tightening the bar for asylum and withholding relief — especially the hold in Matter of Negusie which confirms that duress is not an exception to the persecutor/material-support bar.

In this article I explain each one, show what that means for your case today, and give you concrete “how-to” steps you can use if you or someone you represent is applying for asylum.

1) Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs) — What They Are & Why They Matter

What are ACAs?

Under Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A)), the Attorney General may declare an alien ineligible for asylum if the alien “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 or equivalent temporary protection.”
These arrangements became known as “Asylum Cooperative Agreements” (ACAs). Columbia Journal of Transnational Law+1
For example: in July 2025 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published the “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”, signed March 10, 2025 and amended June 25, 2025. Federal Register+1

Why this matters in practice

If an asylum-applicant falls under an ACA (i.e., transited a partner country, or otherwise meets the criteria), the U.S. may declare them ineligible for asylum in the U.S., and instead transfer them to the partner country for protection there. As one practitioner summary notes: “Asylum still exists, but can now be disposed of procedurally without a hearing” when ACA coverage applies.

Key criteria & potential pitfalls

The ACA typically covers non-nationals of the partner country who arrived in the U.S. after transiting the partner country, or who entered/arrived in the U.S. through or after the partner country, and who are subject to removal to the partner country.
The partner country must offer a “full and fair procedure” for assessing protection claims and must not pose a risk to the alien’s life or freedom.
Filing before being subject to removal under ACA is crucial: if you’re already in removal proceedings and found to be covered, your asylum claim may be pre-termed.
Many applicants underestimate the screening stage: before the asylum merits are handled, an immigration judge must determine whether the ACA bar applies.

Action steps & tips

At intake: map the travel route—list all countries you transited, dates of entry/exit, entry documents or stamps (if any).
If you transited a country that has an ACA with the U.S., gather evidence of whether that country could have provided protection: evidence of your nationality, local conditions, whether you applied there, whether you had a safe option to stay.
In the asylum filing (Form I-589 or in removal court), raise why the ACA should not apply: e.g., you are from the partner country, you did not transit the country, the partner country lacked a fair protection system, you would be at risk there.
Be proactive: if you believe the ACA may apply, discuss other relief options (withholding of removal, CAT—Convention Against Torture) early instead of relying solely on asylum.

2) Credibility, Verification & Evidence under the REAL ID Act

Why this remains crucial

Since the REAL ID Act was enacted, the asylum statute gives adjudicators the authority to evaluate whether the applicant has provided credible testimony and corroboration when reasonably available. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(ii)-(iii). This means you must anticipate and provide documents, witness letters, originals, and other verification unless you show you could not reasonably obtain them.

For example, adjudicators routinely expect originals (not just copies) of key documents and will critically assess contradictions, missing envelopes, missing post-marks, or absent witness letters.

Recent enforcement and applicant impact

Even if your testimony is strong, failing to provide reasonably available corroboration can trigger an adverse credibility finding. The rule: “If the applicant fails to produce evidence that is reasonably obtainable, adjudicators may rely on that failure in assessing credibility.” (see Matter of L-A-C– and subsequent guidance).

Practical steps & tips

Exhibit originals: For any important correspondence (threat letters, official notifications, refugee-status letters, mail communications), keep the original envelope with post-mark, return address, and sender address. If you can’t bring the original, make sure you produce a scanned copy plus a clear explanation of why you cannot bring the original (e.g., destroyed, lost, confiscated).
Chain of custody: Maintain a record/log of when you received each document, who collected it, how it was stored. Photograph documents with date/time stamp if needed.
Corroboration map: For each important factual assertion (e.g., “On Jan 10 2024 I was detained and threatened by police officers X and Y”), list at least one piece of evidence (police record, hospital record, photo of injury, witness statement).
Explain unavailability: If you genuinely cannot obtain a document (government destroyed records, conflict zone, intimidation), include a short declaration explaining your attempt(s) and why you believe it was impossible.
Consistency check: Review the I-589, your declaration, any prior interviews, and witness statements for consistency in names, dates, places, events. Even small discrepancies will be scrutinized.
Prepare for credibility hearing: Bring the original documents (or certified copies) to your interview or court hearing; label each as “Exhibit 1”, “Exhibit 2”, etc., and provide a table of contents to the adjudicator if allowed.

3) The No Duress Exception to the Persecutor/Material-Support Bar — Key Decision in Matter of Negusie

What is the persecutor/material-support bar?

The INA and related statutes (8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i)) bar asylum or withholding (and CAT in some cases) for an applicant who “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Historically, some applicants attempted to argue that their participation in persecution was under duress (coerced) and therefore should not trigger the bar.

The ruling in Matter of Negusie

In Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020), the Attorney General held that there is no duress or coercion exception to the persecutor bar under the INA — meaning that even if the alien acted under threat or coercion, the bar may still apply.

Further, the decision clarified that when there is evidence from which a fact-finder could conclude the bar may apply, the applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it does not apply — rather than DHS having the initial burden to prove the bar does apply.

Why this matters for your case

If there is credible evidence that the applicant assisted in persecution (even under duress), the bar is triggered and cannot be avoided simply by showing coercion.
The focus becomes the applicant’s conduct, not only their motive or state of mind. The bar asks: did you order, incite, assist, or otherwise participate in persecution?
Applicants must frame the case to show they did not assist in persecution — or that the bar does not apply (e.g., the persecution was not on account of a protected ground) — rather than relying on duress as a defense.

Action steps & tips

At intake: ask detailed questions about any past involvement in persecution-type activity (even if you believed you were coerced). Document exactly what you did, when, where, who ordered it, under what threat, and what the persecutor was targeting.
If there is any assistance or participation in persecution, consult eligibility for relief other than asylum (e.g., CAT, which may have a different standard).
Gather evidence showing you were not a persecutor (for example, unwilling or forced to act, but documents may not eliminate bar entirely).
In your declaration, include a clear explanation if you believe the bar is triggered and why you believe an exception or alternative applies — but do not rely only on duress.
In hearing preparation: if the bar is at issue, prepare to address it head-on. Counsel should introduce evidence showing lack of participation or that the conduct did not amount to “ordering, inciting, assisting, or otherwise participating in persecution” on account of a protected ground.
Finally, ensure you raise relief arguments for withholding of removal and CAT as fallback options in case asylum is denied due to the bar.

Bottom Line

The asylum landscape in 2025 is more demanding than ever. Between broad new international cooperative agreements (ACAs) that can render you ineligible from the start, stringent documentary and credibility requirements under the REAL ID framework, and landmark-level changes in the interpretation of bar provisions (as in Matter of Negusie) you must walk into your case fully prepared.

But it’s still winnable. If you take the time to map your travel and transit history, proactively collect and organize your original documents, and carefully analyze any potential bar issues (rather than hoping they simply won’t apply), you increase your odds of success.

If you or a family member are navigating these issues — ACA risk, credibility proof, or suspected persecutor-bar exposure — call me at 917-885-2261 or contact us via shautsova.com. Let’s map your story, map your evidence, and proceed with confidence.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Sources & Further Reading

Agreement between the U.S. and Honduras for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests (90 FR 30076, July 8 2025). Federal Register+1
DHS Fact Sheet: U.S. Agreements with Guatemala, Honduras & El Salvador. Department of Homeland Security+1
Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020) – no duress exception to persecutor bar. Immigration Advocates Network+1
Immigration Policy Tracking Project: “AG Bondi removes stay in Matter of Negusie, holding that INA persecutor bar lacks duress exception,” October 22 2025.