This chapter analyses the Rohingya influx in Bangladesh since the 2016 through the conceptual lens of “vulnerability” and “face”, rather than through the conventional framework of human rights. By examining the case of the Rohingyas, this chapter considers the contemporary significance of these concepts and reflects on the kind of body we inhabit within and against the biopolitical logics of borders. In my reading of Emmanuel Lévinas and Judis Butler, vulnerability can be understood in two distinct ways: the first is the possibility of being exposed to violence from the Other, and the second is the possibility that the self may be pierced by the suffering of the Other. The nation-state classifies individuals through categories that designate those within its borders as “nationals” and those outside as “foreigners,” thereby enacting a biopolitical regime that sustains the lives of “nationals” while excluding, detaining, or subjecting “foreigners” to conditions of legal and social marginalisation. Reframed in relation to vulnerability, this biopolitical regime denies the first vulnerability of the self (the nationals) and contains the second vulnerability of the Other (the foreigners). Since October 2016, the government of Bangladesh fortified its border defenses to prevent further influx of Rohingyas. However, following the genocide of 25 August 2017, the border was temporarily opened in response to the face of injured Rohingyas and dead bodies of children that had washed ashore along the Naf River. It was a “pre-selective response” to the second vulnerability caused by the Other’s suffering. However, the presence of Rohingyas in Bangladesh is considered temporary, and their rights to mobility, higher education, and stable employment remain suspended. They are forced to rely on aid agencies, local resources, and informal or illegal activities for survival, which has led to growing frustration among the host community. Rohingyas have continued to remain in camps with no progress in repatriation to Myanmar, which has deepened their “out-of-placeness” in Bangladesh. They are increasingly perceived as a threat, while the second vulnerability generated by encounters with their face has gradually been obscured. The case examined in this chapter demonstrates that the vulnerability holds the potential to destabilise borders, but this potential is not enduring; it is counteracted by a dominant border biopolitics that erases the second vulnerability. Ultimately, this suggests that we inhabit a "geo-body" enclosed by borders, rather than a vulnerable body open to the Other.