The persistent recourse to pushback practices egregiously flouts the sanctity of international human rights jurisprudence, particularly the venerable principle of non-refoulement, endowed with the stature as a jus cogens norm. Despite the solemnity of their legal frameworks, myriad states brazenly cont-ravene the inalienable right of migrants to seek asylum, thereby precipitating affronts to the rights of refugees. The contentious doctrine of the “safe” third country, wielded by certain EU member states to divest themselves of asylum obligations and confine migrants beyond the purview of EU borders, is thrust into this paper through a legal framework analysis. The strategic closure of the “Balkan route” in 2016, a measure ostensibly undertaken to staunch the flow of migrants traversing the Balkans, has, in effect, catalysed a marked escalation in migratory pressures ensnaring Bosnia-Herzegovina. Croatia, in bearing the onus of perpetrating pushback manoeuvres at its border with Bosnia and Her-zegovina, compounds the tribulations faced by a realm grappling with a dire hu-manitarian crisis, bereft as it is of the requisite infrastructure to grapple with the influx of asylum seekers. The S.B. and Others v. Croatia case law adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights resoundingly underscores the exigent mandate to redress concerns over migration control while resolutely upholding the tenets of human rights. In essence, the present paper impels a profound contemplation on the adherence to international refugee conventions and the safeguarding of fundamental rights, thus casting an illuminative beam upon the imperious necessity of rectifying systemic maladministration and transgressi-ons at the EU external borders.