Matter of B-S-A-N-: the Board's new rule for citizens of "safe" countries, and why dual citizens should pay attention

On October 9, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals decided Matter of B-S-A-N-, 30 I&N Dec. 145. It is a precedent decision, which means immigration judges across the country must follow it.

The Board's message is short: asylum is for people with nowhere else to turn, and citizens of some countries almost always have somewhere else to turn. Most of the people we represent are not from those countries. But many hold a second citizenship that is, and for them this decision matters a great deal.

The case

The applicant was a citizen of both France and Gabon. She moved from France to Gabon as an infant, came to the United States as a student in 2016, and applied for asylum in 2018. She said she feared harm because of her family's opposition to Gabon's former president, and that Gabonese agents would find her even in France.

The immigration judge denied her case, and the Board dismissed her appeal.

The two rules the Board announced

The decision sets out two holdings:

1. "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."
2. "European Union citizens are presumptively ineligible for a discretionary grant of asylum in the United States because they are entitled to indefinitely reside lawfully in any EU member state."

The second rule rests on the EU's free-movement law. The Board said that even if an EU citizen could show a well-founded fear in his own country, he would not get asylum as a matter of discretion "unless he shows that he cannot safely reside in any of the other 26 member states of the European Union."

Which countries are on the list

The Board named the countries its first holding covers:

Asylum has always been discretionary under INA 208(b)(1)(A): even a person who qualifies as a refugee "may" be granted asylum, not "shall." The Board used that discretion to set a general rule for these countries.

Why dual citizens should pay attention

This is where the decision reaches further than it first appears. Under Matter of B-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 119 (BIA 2013), which the Board applied again here, a person with two citizenships must show a well-founded fear of persecution, and a lack of protection, in each country.

Many people from Latin America hold a second passport from Spain, Italy or Portugal through a parent or grandparent. Others hold Canadian or British citizenship from an earlier move. Under B-S-A-N-, that second citizenship from a listed country can defeat an asylum claim that would otherwise be strong, because the applicant is expected to live safely there instead.

What about withholding of removal and CAT?

The new presumption is about asylum, which is discretionary. Withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture are not discretionary in the same way, and they have their own, higher standards.

In this case the Board denied those too, for a separate reason: the applicant had shown no fear of persecution in France, so she could not meet the higher bars for withholding or CAT protection as to France. For how the three forms of protection compare, see Asylum, withholding of removal and CAT.

What to do if this may affect you

1. List every citizenship, including ones by descent you have never claimed. Bring any passport or certificate to your lawyer.
2. Do not drop a case on your own. The decision says "generally," and every case turns on its facts. Talk to a lawyer before you decide anything.
3. Look at other forms of protection and other immigration options with your lawyer, since asylum is now much harder for this group.
4. Watch for appeals. Federal courts of appeals review Board decisions, and this one may be challenged. We will update this post if a court rules on it.