However, the agreements the United States is pursuing in Central America is nothing like what it has concluded with Canada – neither in intent nor in development, Ojeda said. When an asylum officer or ij finds that a foreigner is not allowed to apply for asylum under Section 208(a) (a) (A), the foreigner also does not have the opportunity to apply for asylum under Section 241 (b) (3) (A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231 (b) (3)). The purpose of Section 208 (a) (2) (A) – and an agreement between the United States and another country under that agreement – is to “give a particular country (but not both) responsibility for the treatment of a foreigner related to fear of persecution or torture in the country of origin of the foreigner. Implementation of the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on transit and shore-based refugee claims Border Ports of Entry, 69 FR at 10620 (DHS) (proposed rule). This objective would be null and void if the United States remained responsible for the decision on its detention and CTU protection, even though, in Section 208 (A) (A) and another ACA country, it was responsible for the decision on a foreign person`s claim. Even if the United States had accepted a foreigner`s claims to the detention of removal or protection from the CTU, this would exclude the possibility of deportation to the country of origin of the foreigner, “n]othing. [would] prevent [the United States] from withdrawing the foreigner from a third country,” including a country prohibited from the applicable ACA. 8 CFR 208.16 (f), 1208.16 (f). Since the foreigner could be deported to a third country under the ACA, regardless of the possible outcome of his deference or his rights to cat protection, Congress cannot intend to ask DHS and DOJ to decide on these rights before they result in such removal. See refugee claims of foreigners arriving from Canada at ports of entry, 69 FR at 69492-93 (DOJ) (for similar reasons) and concluded that if the U.S.-Canada agreement prevents a foreigner from seeking asylum in the United States, the foreigner is also barred from applying for CTU withholding and protection. As with the rules for implementing the U.S.-Canada agreement, this rule will incorporate legal requirements into their threshold screening mechanism to assess which foreigners cannot apply for asylum under an ACA.
The applicability of additional restrictions to categories of foreigners subject to the conditions of a given ACA will also be assessed during the first screening. Where it is established that an ACA applies to a foreign person seeking asylum and the foreigner does not prove that his or her life or liberty in the third country is more likely to apply than it is not threatened, the immigration officer may order deportation without consideration for asylum, withholding or application for CAT, by analogy with the canada-U.S. deportation agreements. See implementation of the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on refugee claims in transit and in the country Border Ports-of-Entry, 69 FR at 69481 (DHS) (“A] careful reading of the law makes it clear that credible anxiety interviews are not necessary for foreigners subject to [ACA]. “i) The official notes) The official notes. , with the agreement of a refugee claim supervisor, during the audit interview. that a foreigner is not eligible for an exception under the existing agreement and, if so, that the foreigner has not demonstrated that he or she is more likely to be persecuted for a protected reason or tortured in the host country, the foreigner is not allowed to seek asylum in the United States.