Original Date Announced

EOIR Acting Director Sirce E. Owen issued Policy Memorandum 25-28, which sets forth EOIR's interpretation that current law allows immigration judges to reject ("pretermit") legally deficient asylum applications without a hearing. The memo indicates immigration judges "should take . . . all appropriate action to immediately resolve cases on their docket that do not have viable legal paths for relief or protection of removal," including through pretermission.

Trump 2.0 [ID #1676]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.31 Interim Decision - Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G-

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedent decision in Matter of C-I-G-M- & L-V-S-G- holding that asylum applications may be pretermitted when there is an ACA in place. The respondents are asylum seekers from Guatemala. DHS had filed a motion to pretermit the lead respondent's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protections under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that she is ineligible to apply for asylum and related relief because she may be removed to Honduras under the Honduras ACA.

The BIA ruled that the ACA with Honduras bars the respondent's asylum application, and that the "Immigration Judge erred in determining that the ACA with Honduras does not apply to the respondent based solely on counsel's representations that the respondent fears being harmed there and generalized evidence of country conditions in Honduras." The BIA also ruled that the respondent is properly subject to the ACA with Honduras, even though the ACA was not implemented until after she filed for asylum in the United States.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.13 Amended Complaint - Caballero-Arauz v. Bondi

Caballero-Arauz, a national of Panama seeking asylum, filed an amended complaint against the Trump administration to challenge the Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA) with Honduras and the interim final rule and related policies concerning ACAs. DHS had filed a motion to pretermit Caballero-Arauz’s asylum application, seeking her removal to Honduras under the ACA with Honduras. The plaintiff asserts that the application of the Honduras ACA to her contravenes the safe third country provision of the INA, constitutes arbitrary and capricious action, and would deprive her of statutory and constitutional rights. It further alleges that the government has issued a designation categorically finding that Honduras has a “full and fair” asylum process, and that this designation is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and precludes required individualized, case-specific determinations. Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the pretermission violates her Fifth Amendment rights, including the right to notice, the right to present evidence, and the right to a full and fair hearing. Caballero-Arauz v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-15665 (N.D. lll.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**