U.T. v. Bondi

  • U.T. v. Bondi

    Case Status:
    Open

    This case challenges the government’s unlawful rule and associated policies purporting to implement the “safe third country” provision of the asylum statute. The government has entered into “asylum cooperative agreements” to send asylum seekers to unsafe third countries with weak asylum systems, rather than hear their claims here. We recently moved for leave to file a second amended complaint and to certify the class.

    Court and Case No.:

    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:20-cv-00116

What is the government doing and why are we challenging it? 

In 2019, the Trump administration signed “Asylum Cooperative Agreements” with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras to enable U.S. border officials to remove asylum seekers to these countries rather than hear their claims in the United States. Although U.S. law does provide for transferring an asylum seeker to a “safe third country” (not their home country, and not the United States), it requires that the asylum seeker actually be safe in that country and have access to a full and fair asylum procedure.

We challenged the November 2019 rule that provides a procedural framework for current and future Asylum Cooperative Agreements, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services guidance to asylum officers on the Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement, and the government’s categorical designations of Guatemala as a safe third country. Both parties submitted cross motions for summary judgment but the implementation of the Rule was paused in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Biden administration then terminated the Trump 1.0-era agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. However, the Biden  administration did not rescind the Rule or the other challenged policies prior to the change in administrations.

The case had been held in abeyance since February 2021 per joint request. However, the current administration has signed or pursued a series of new agreements in recent months, including with at least Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Belize, Ecuador, and Uganda. The government has already been invoking these new agreements and published an intended ratification of the Rule on August 20, 2025.

Each of these countries utterly fail to meet the criteria of safety and lack functioning asylum systems. None have the capacity to handle more than a minuscule number of asylum claims and all are plagued with rampant gender- and gang-related violence and other civil and political unrest that has forced thousands of their own citizens to seek asylum in the United States.

And the second Trump administration has only been aggressively expanding its effort to deny asylum seekers' protection applications and deport them to countries that the U.S. State Department has itself has reported are unsafe, present serious human rights concerns, and/or have weak or corrupt asylum systems. In recent months, the government has filed ACA-based motions to pretermit in at least hundreds of cases and in immigration courts across the United States.

What is at stake? 

The plaintiffs in U.T. v. Bondi include some of the first asylum seekers subjected to the Asylum Cooperative Agreement with Guatemala in 2019, as well as asylum seekers subjected to other agreements in 2025. H.R., for example, is a mother who fled El Salvador after gang members killed two of her siblings and attempted to force her teenage daughter into a sexual relationship. When H.R. and her children finally reached the U.S. border and asked for protection, an asylum officer told them they were going to be transferred to Guatemala under the new Agreement.

H.R.’s family had been extorted by Guatemalan police officers when they passed through the country en route to the U.S. border. She begged the asylum officer to let them stay in the United States, where she knew they would be safe – to no avail. After the U.S. forcibly returned H.R. to Guatemala, she was given only 72 hours to decide whether she wanted to apply for asylum there. H.R. felt just as unsafe as she had in El Salvador, and she had no family or resources in Guatemala. She knew she had no choice but to return home. Back in El Salvador, H.R. and her family continue to live in fear of the gangs whose threats forced them to flee in the first place.

What’s the status of this case? 

On September 8, 2025, CGRS and co-counsel filed a motion to lift the abeyance on the case. And we then requested leave to amend the complaint to challenge the new agreements. On October 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion to lift the stay and accepted our first amended complaint. On December 19, 2025, CGRS and co-counsel requested leave to file our second amended complaint, adding 18 additional individual plaintiffs, and filed a motion to certify the class. The government opposed both motions. CGRS and co-counsel filed replies in support of class certification and for leave to file the second amended complaint in late January 2026.

Who’s involved? 

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies is counsel along with the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights First, and the National Immigrant Justice Center. Organizational plaintiffs are the Tahirih Justice Center and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. A number of organizations have filed amicus briefs including the asylum officers’ union, several states, Refugees International, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and RAICES.

How can you help? 

Take the #WelcomeWithDignity pledge and join our movement to defend the right to seek asylum. You can support CGRS’s vital work on cases like this one by making a donation.

Need more information? 

Contact Brianna Krong, Communications and Advocacy Manager, at krongbrianna@uclawsf.edu.

Resources for Advocates 

CGRS has produced several resources to support attorneys representing clients impacted by policies affecting asylum seekers at the border. Click here to request materials relevant to your client’s case.

Press Releases

Select Media Coverage

Legal Documents