Paraguay

On August 14, 2025, Paraguay signed a supposed “Safe Third Country Agreement” with the United States through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), under which asylum seekers in the United States would be transferred to Paraguay and permitted to seek protection through Paraguay’s National Commission for the Stateless Persons and Refugees (CONARE). The MOU was made public through the U.S. Federal Register in December 2025. 

In February of 2026, the agreement was expanded with an addendum to include not only asylum seekers, but third country nationals “not processed by United States” who would be transferred to Paraguay. The Paraguayan government recently stated they would receive 25 people per month, who would be evaluated for entry by the National Migration Directorate. In April of 2026, the United States intended to send 25 individuals to Paraguay but nine individuals were deemed not suitable for entry due to documentation issues–the details of which are unclear. On April 22, 2026, the remaining 16 were sent to Paraguay. They were from various Spanish-speaking countries, including Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Spain. Reports stated that they would remain in the country for 72 hours and then be returned to their countries of origin, facilitated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) through funding from the United States. During their short stay, they would be housed in a hotel in the capital. 

The 2025 agreement has been challenged as part of the U.T. v. Bondi litigation on Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs). An ACA is an agreement where the United States bars asylum seekers from applying for U.S. asylum and sends them to a third country to apply for protection there. U.S. law governing “safe third country agreements” provides that asylum seekers cannot be sent to third countries for assessment of their asylum claims unless they would be safe from persecution and have access to full and fair asylum procedures. The current and former Trump administrations have repeatedly entered into ACAs – purportedly under the safe third country provision – with countries that do not meet these requirements. U.T. v. Bondi challenges the legality of several aspects of the ACAs, including a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 2019 interim final rule purporting to authorize the ACAs (ratified by DHS in 2025), DHS guidance implementing them, and designations finding that countries with which the United States has ACAs provide access to a “full and fair” asylum system. U.T. v. Bondi began as a challenge to ACAs during the first Trump administration as U.T. v. Barr.

It remains unclear whether the Paraguayan government is receiving direct financial support for its participation. The MOU between the two countries states that “nothing should be interpreted in such a way that commits the disbursement or allocation of funds by the parties”. However, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the two countries were “deepening cooperation across security, diplomatic, and economic fronts” and the Paraguayan government stated that the National Treasury would incur no cost to receive transferred individuals. The aforementioned cooperation appears to include an agreement signed on December 15, 2025 providing a framework for U.S. military presence in Paraguay. On March 11, 2026, Paraguay’s chamber of deputies approved a defense agreement allowing the temporary presence of U.S. military and civilian personnel inside its borders.  

Paraguay’s asylum system is still developing and has limited capacity due to a decline in funding along with staffing changes that have affected the frequency with which the commission that approves refugee claims can meet. There are few non-governmental organizations in Paraguay that can provide asylum seekers with legal assistance or humanitarian support. By the end of 2024, approximately 6,031 people were registered as refugees in the country, most of them from Venezuela and Cuba. Following the U.S. strikes in Venezuela, Paraguay repealed the decree allowing Venezuelans visa free entry into the country, citing “security reasons” as a justification for the change. Border areas remain affected by organized criminal groups linked to drug trafficking, raising concerns about the protection environment for transferred asylum seekers.