In Chapter 5, I examine cases in which refugees directly challenge regional containment instruments. This has occurred in North America (a safe third-country agreement between the US and Canada), Asia-Pacific (offshore processing agreements between Australia and Malaysia, Australia and Papua New Guinea and Australia and Nauru), Europe (the Dublin System and a refugee swap agreement between Europe and Turkey) and Libya (an externalisation agreement between Libya and Italy). I examine the ways decision-makers manoeuvre juridical borders in constructing ideas of refuge and determining the legality of states’ attempts to prevent refugees crossing international borders. I observe that when courts consider the significance of refugeehood and expand their juridical borders, they set high thresholds for refuge and characterise it as a duty owed by states. However, in most cases courts ignore the salience of refugee status and retract their juridical borders. This means that there is no minimum standard of refuge set and refuge morphs from an obligation to a discretion. Refugees become trapped in the resisted place of refuge, unable to continue their journey except in extraordinary circumstances. What is considered exceptional is highly gendered with the narrow frameworks developed sidelining experiences of male and also many female refugees.