Not So Firmly Settled: How the Inconsistent Jurisprudence of the Firm Resettlement Bar Serves as a Tool for Asylum Seeker Exclusion

Authors

Caroline V. Garrido, Fordham University School of Law

Keywords

Asylum; immigration; firm resettlement; third-country; statutory bar; asylum bar; asylum law; asylee; refugee; refugee law; deportation; removal proceedings; circuit split; Board of Immigration Appeals; refugee status; safety; offer of permanent residence; firmly resettled; totality of the circumstances; Matter of A-G-G-; direct offer; direct offer approach; human rights; Convention on the Status of Refugees; visas; temporary stay; discretion; immigration court; immigration judge; migrant; migrants; immigrants; immigrant; undocumented

Abstract

The firm resettlement bar to asylum, designed to limit protections to those without refuge elsewhere, has become a source of inconsistency, confusion, and exclusion in U.S. asylum law. Circuit courts have adopted two different approaches for determining whether an asylum seeker has firmly resettled in a third country. Despite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ attempt to unify these approaches through the introduction of a burden-shifting framework, courts remain divided, and there is no clear guidance on what constitutes firm resettlement. This Note argues that this lack of guidance has led to inconsistent court holdings and interpretations that conflict with the purpose of asylum protection. To address these issues, this Note proposes a new three-part test that provides clear criteria for assessing firm resettlement to ensure that asylum is not denied to those who have yet to find safe refuge.

Recommended Citation

Caroline V. Garrido, Not So Firmly Settled: How the Inconsistent Jurisprudence of the Firm Resettlement Bar Serves as a Tool for Asylum Seeker Exclusion, 94 Fordham L. Rev. 1059 (2025).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol94/iss3/5