A/80/302 States-Mexico Joint Declaration on migration cooperation, some non-Mexican asylum-seekers arriving at the southern border of the United States were required to remain in Mexico while their asylum applications were processed in the United States. They would be admitted to the United States on the dates of their asylum court hearings. In practice, it was almost impossible to have access to legal counsel and only a small percentage of the approximately 80,000 asylum-seekers subjected to this measure saw their asylum claim succeed. Asylum-seekers frequently lacked access to basic services and employment and many were victims of violence in Mexico. 42 C. Readmission or expulsion to a third State 17. Under some agreements, externalizing States will return or expel a person to a third State that is not the person’s country of nationality. 43 Most often, this arrangement has permitted returning persons to transit countries that are considered safe. Recently, some States have contemplated proposals to transfer people to places to which they have never been, or so-called return hubs. 18. Notable examples of this practice are all 18 formal readmission agreements that the European Union signed with other States between 2004 and 2014. Those agreements, which were concluded pursuant to the founding treaties of the European Union, contain a so-called third-country national clause. 44 Under such a clause, European Union member States are allowed to return a person in an irregular situation to another State that is party to the readmission agreement when it is considered that the person has some connection to that State, such as having at least transited its territory before reaching the European Union. 45 19. More recently, cooperation on readmission with non-European Union countries has become increasingly informal. This shift allows for more flexibility in negotiations, caters to the reluctance of non-European Union States to cooperate on migration management and fundamentally reduces transparency and oversight (see para. 44). 46 A prime example of an informal readmission arrangement that covers third-country nationals is the 2016 European Union-Türkiye statement. 47 In accordance with that statement, all persons crossing irregularly from Türkiye into the Greek Aegean islands since 20 March 2016 have been returned to Türkiye, which was declared a “safe third country” or “first country of asylum” in order to consider the asylum applications of people reaching Greece through Türkiye as being inadmissible. Pending the determination of admissibility, applicants are detained or contained on the Greek islands, often in substandard conditions. 48 The detention centres on the islands have so-called safe areas for unaccompanied children that are meant to provide a protective environment, where they receive primary support and __________________ 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 25-12609 See communication USA 4/2019; and submissions by Programa de Asuntos Migratorios and Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales. A/HRC/23/46, para. 62. Available at https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/irregularmigration-and-return/effective-firm-and-fair-eu-return-and-readmission-policy_en. In addition to the readmission agreements of the European Union, the States members of the Union have concluded bilateral readmission agreements with non-European Union countries, but it is unclear how many of them include a third-country national clause (see https://www.jeanpierrecassarino.com/datasets/ra/?utm). Jean-Pierre Cassarino and Mariagiulia Giuffré, “Finding its place in Africa: why has the EU opted for flexible arrangements on readmission?”, Human Rights Law Centre, University of Nottingham (1 December 2017). Available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkeystatement/. ASILE Project, “Country report: Turkey” (2022). 9/23