Asylum Claims From 40 Developed Democracies: Matter of B-S-A-N- (BIA 2026)

On October 9, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of B-S-A-N-, 30 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2026), a precedent that sharply limits asylum for nationals of a defined group of countries.

The holdings

• Immigration Judges should generally deny asylum applications filed by nationals of highly developed, democratic countries that broadly respect and protect human rights, except in extraordinary circumstances involving national security or foreign policy considerations.
• Citizens of the European Union are presumptively ineligible for a discretionary grant of asylum because they are entitled to reside lawfully and indefinitely in any EU member state.

The countries covered

The decision defines the category to include every member of the European Union; Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, which are associated with the EU through the European Economic Area or the European Free Trade Association; the microstates of Monaco, Andorra and San Marino; and the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. That is 40 countries in total. The Board said these countries have effective law enforcement and judicial systems that show the ability and willingness to control violent activity by private actors and protect their citizens' rights.

The case

The respondent was a native of France and a citizen of both France and Gabon. An Immigration Judge denied asylum, withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection in July 2022. The Board requested supplemental briefing on whether she would merit asylum as a matter of discretion and then dismissed the appeal.

Asylum is discretionary; withholding and CAT are not

The ruling rests on the discretionary nature of asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). Withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and CAT protection are not discretionary, but they require a higher likelihood of harm, and the decision notes that CAT requires a greater degree of government involvement. For nationals of the listed countries, those claims remain available in theory but face the same evidence about effective protection at home.

Why it matters for people with criminal records

People with certain convictions are already barred from asylum and depend on withholding or CAT protection. For nationals of the listed countries, B-S-A-N- removes the discretionary asylum route even where no bar applies. Strategy should focus on whether the facts support the non-discretionary forms of protection; see asylum, withholding and CAT with a criminal record.

Practical points

• Dual nationals should analyze both nationalities; the respondent here held French and Gabonese citizenship.
• Claims based on harm by private actors face the Board's finding that these states can and will protect their citizens. Evidence must address that finding directly.
• The extraordinary-circumstances exception is narrow and tied to national security or foreign policy.
• Weak claims may be pretermitted without a full hearing after Matter of G-R-B-.

Other recent asylum precedents

Travel back to the feared country can abandon a claim under Matter of M-R-I-. For a sample of how delays in affirmative cases are litigated, see our mandamus guide with an asylum sample and affirmative asylum mandamus.

Related Guides on This Site

See also New Report Shows Devastating Effects of Trumps Expanded Travel Ban. See also Special Immigrant Juvenile Status in New York Family Court. See also VAWA Self-Petitions: Good Moral Character and Criminal History.

Disclosure: Criminal Immigration Law collaborates with the law firm that publishes Mandamus.com and N600K.com; some articles link to their guides. General information only, not legal advice.