The firm resettlement bar to asylum, designed to limit protections to those without refuge elsewhere, has become a source of inconsistency, confusion, and exclusion in U.S. asylum law.  Circuit courts have adopted two different approaches for determining whether an asylum seeker has firmly resettled in a third country.  Despite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ attempt to unify these approaches through the introduction of a burden-shifting framework, courts remain divided, and there is no clear guidance on what constitutes firm resettlement.  This Note argues that this lack of guidance has led to inconsistent court holdings and interpretations that conflict with the purpose of asylum protection.  To address these issues, this Note proposes a new three-part test that provides clear criteria for assessing firm resettlement to ensure that asylum is not denied to those who have yet to find safe refuge.