PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 16, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10800 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10800 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10800 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10800 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would let noncitizens challenge decisions to remove them to another country designated as safe, using specified evidence about their safety, access to asylum procedures, or problems with the transfer agreement. It would require their release from detention while courts review those decisions. It would also require the Secretary of State to establish minimum standards for safe-country designations and certify compliance to Congress before making a designation.
An alien seeking judicial review of a determination under paragraph (2)(A) that such alien may be removed to a safe third country may present as prima facie evidence that the alien may not be so removed any of the following:
An alien who seeks judicial review of a determination under paragraph (2)(A) shall be released from detention for the duration of such review.
the Secretary of State shall issue a rule setting forth the minimum standards for a country to be designated a safe third country
The Secretary of State shall submit a certification to Congress that a country meets the requirements of the rule issued pursuant to paragraph (4) before designating such country as a safe third country.
Section 1 would name the bill the Hearings are Essential for Asylum Removal to Third-countries Act, or HEART Act.
This Act may be cited as the Hearings are Essential for Asylum Removal to Third-countries Act or the HEART Act.
Section 2 would replace the judicial-review paragraph with a general bar on courts reviewing the Attorney General’s determinations under paragraph (2), subject to an exception for safe-third-country determinations under paragraph (2)(A).
(1) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows: (3) Judicial review (A) In general Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).
(B) Jurisdiction over determination of safe third country (i) In general An alien seeking judicial review of a determination under paragraph (2)(A) that such alien may be removed to a safe third country may present as prima facie evidence that the alien may not be so removed any of the following:
A noncitizen challenging removal could present any listed ground as prima facie evidence—evidence sufficient to support an initial case against removal, without necessarily deciding the final outcome. Two grounds are that the agreement with the destination country does not apply to the person, or that the person’s life or liberty would be threatened there because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
An alien seeking judicial review of a determination under paragraph (2)(A) that such alien may be removed to a safe third country may present as prima facie evidence that the alien may not be so removed any of the following: (I) The bilateral or multilateral agreement with such third country, pursuant to which the determination under paragraph (2)(A) was made, does not apply to such alien. (II) Such alien’s life or liberty would be threatened in such third country, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The other permitted grounds would be lack of access to a full and fair procedure for seeking asylum or equivalent temporary protection, or a technical problem implementing the agreement that would interfere with, prevent, or unduly delay removal. The technical problem could qualify even if the agreement does not mention it.
may present as prima facie evidence that the alien may not be so removed any of the following:
(III) Such alien would not have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection in such third country. (IV) A technical issue related to the implementation of such bilateral or multilateral agreement, would interfere with, prevent, or unduly delay the removal of such alien, regardless of whether such issue is included in the terms of such agreement.
A noncitizen seeking court review of a safe-third-country removal determination would have to be released from detention for the duration of that review. The release requirement is tied to seeking review; the text does not condition it on first proving one of the listed grounds.
(ii) Release pending review An alien who seeks judicial review of a determination under paragraph (2)(A) shall be released from detention for the duration of such review.
Within 180 days after enactment of the new rulemaking paragraph, the Secretary of State would have to issue minimum standards for safe-third-country designations. Those standards would have to include due process for immigrants—fair legal procedures—a consistent record of observing the rule of law, and an unlikelihood of imminent military conflict or violent domestic unrest.
(4) Rulemaking Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall issue a rule setting forth the minimum standards for a country to be designated a safe third country, which shall include— (A) due process for immigrants; (B) a consistent record of faithfully observing the rule of law; (C) an unlikelihood of imminent military conflict or violent domestic unrest;
The designation standards would also have to require compliance with international refugee and human rights conventions and a determination that the country independently has the economic resources to provide humanely for refugees seeking asylum.
(D) a requirement that the country complies with international refugee and human rights conventions; and (E) a determination that the country independently possesses the economic resources to provide humanely for refugees engaged in the asylum seeking process.
Before designating a country as a safe third country, the Secretary of State would have to certify to Congress that it meets the new rule’s requirements. This provision requires certification; it does not require a congressional approval vote.
(5) Certification The Secretary of State shall submit a certification to Congress that a country meets the requirements of the rule issued pursuant to paragraph (4) before designating such country as a safe third country.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on October 13, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T11:59:09Z. 2026-10-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-10-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The review and release protections form part of the bill’s general policy for the affected population. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI