The EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016 represents a pivotal moment in the European Union’s approach to migration governance, aimed at reducing irregular arrivals while facilitating returns to Turkey. However, its legal nature, implementation, and compatibility with EU law and international human rights standards remain subjects of debate. This thesis provides a comprehensive legal and institutional analysis of the EU-Turkey Statement, examining whether it constitutes a binding international agreement or a mere political declaration, and evaluating its implications for the rights of asylum seekers. By assessing the Statement's legal basis, procedural safeguards, and enforcement mechanisms, this research critically examines its compatibility with the principle of non-refoulement, the prohibition of collective expulsions, and EU asylum law. Through an analysis of key jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the thesis explores how recent rulings—such as A.R.E. v. Greece and C-406/22—challenge the presumption that Turkey qualifies as a safe third country. Additionally, the study situates the EU-Turkey Statement within the broader context of EU externalization policies, drawing comparisons with other migration agreements to assess its role in shaping contemporary asylum governance. The findings indicate that while the Statement has contributed to a reduction in irregular migration, its implementation has raised significant legal concerns, particularly regarding the treatment of asylum seekers, the legality of pushbacks, and procedural deficiencies in Greece’s fast-track asylum system. Moreover, the European Council’s role in negotiating the Statement outside of formal treaty-making procedures raises questions about institutional accountability and democratic oversight in EU migration policy. By critically engaging with case law, policy developments, and legal doctrine, this thesis argues that the EU-Turkey Statement sets a concerning precedent for migration governance by prioritizing border control over fundamental rights protections. The study concludes by proposing legal and policy recommendations to enhance transparency, accountability, and human rights safeguards in future migration agreements.