Asylum Cases Research Articles

Exploring the mental health impact of asylum-seeking of sexual minority men: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Sexual minority individuals, often called LGBTQ+, encounter significant danger and violence in some countries worldwide. This forces many to seek asylum in a range of European countries. The study aimed to explore the experiences of seeking asylum and its implications for the mental health of sexual minority forced migrant men in Sweden. Methods An exploratory qualitative approach was used, and 15 adult gay and bisexual cisgender men were interviewed individually. Participants were recruited through a combination of purposeful, convenience, and snowball sampling. Systematic text condensation was used to analyze data. The analysis was conducted in close collaboration with three migrants with lived experience. Results The asylum-seeking process proved emotionally challenging, involving procedures with negative impacts on mental health. Challenges included disclosing intimate information during asylum interviews and enduring long periods of uncertainty with limited information on asylum case progress. Fundamental to participants’ experiences were the behaviors and attitudes of the professionals involved in legal procedures. Disrespectful and homophobic conduct during asylum interviews, enacted by interpreters and caseworkers, had been experienced by participants. The accuracy of interpretation emerged as crucial, possibly influencing the outcome of asylum claims as well as participants’ comfort in sharing information. Conclusions Sexual minority men seeking asylum in Sweden find themselves in an unfamiliar and emotionally challenging position. The challenges highlighted in this study implicates that the stressful asylum process may lead to health burdens among this population. The study emphasizes the critical role of a safe, affirming and supportive environment for asylum seekers. Further research is needed to develop effective support methods to ensure the health and well-being of sexual minority forced migrant populations during the asylum process. Key messages • The stressful asylum process may lead to health burdens among forced migrant sexual minority men. • There is a need for public health action to develop effective support methods addressing the mental health challenges faced by sexual minority forced migrants during their asylum process.

The Mexican Embassy and the battle over asylum in Trujillo’s Dominican Republic, l946–1954

ABSTRACT Between 1945 and 1954, a series of conflictive asylum cases unfolded in the Mexican Embassy in Santo Domingo. An examination of Foreign Ministry records from the era reveals a complex situation, in which different players sought to harness diplomatic asylum for their own purposes. Dominican asylum seekers, Mexican representatives and the Trujillo dictatorship all struggled to define the parameters of a practice that was integral to the region’s politics. This article details two particularly challenging cases that confronted Mexican officials during this period, that of Dominican labor leader Mauricio Báez and his four brothers and a second case involving Tomás Reyes Cerda, who spent nineteen months confined to the Mexican Embassy. The two cases highlight the competing interests that drove the Mexican and Dominican governments: as Mexico defended an open and generous application of asylum that was key to its international image, the Trujillo regime was determined to stop an exodus of Dominicans who could undermine its own reputation abroad. Their decade-long struggle over the intricacies of diplomatic asylum not only shaped Latin American international law, but it also raised questions about the unfettered right of states to persecute their own citizens.

Legal hostilities: Navigating queerness, emotion, and space in asylum law

Asylum laws, policies, and bureaucracies are structured by spatializing logics of emotion such as compassion, sympathy, fear, anxiety, and hostility. For lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) people who seek asylum, legal recognition as a refugee is contingent on the extent to which receiving states believe they are deserving of compassion and care. This materializes spatially through racialized legal and administrative cartographies of safety and danger that position LGBTIQ people as being at risk of a “well-founded fear” of persecution. Meanwhile, those LGBTIQ people who seek asylum in a “disorderly” manner or present “disrupted” narratives of either their identity or persecution generate administrative anxieties and hostilities as states seek to “guard” the border from disingenuous claims and dangerous bodies. For LGBTIQ people who seek asylum in the United Kingdom (UK), these affective tensions become apparent in the hostile bordering practices of law that seek to narrowly codify sex, gender, sexuality, race, culture, and harm. Drawing on a rich data set of LGBTIQ asylum cases from the UK, this paper adopts hostility as a novel analytic lens to map carefully how: (1) hostility materializes as a substantive object of legal or administrative scrutiny when understanding the nature of LGBTIQ identity and persecution and (2) hostility emerges procedurally through status determination processes as an “emotional grammar” to limit the possibilities of legal recognition. This affective critical work is normatively significant if we (as scholars and lawyers) are to create spaces within law and policy to support LGBTIQ people who seek asylum.

Psychiatric evidence in immigration and asylum cases – a tale of two experts

SUMMARY In an article in this issue of BJPsych Advances a courageous psychiatrist describes judicial criticism of his expert testimony in a case before the UK's Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This commentary reflects on the value of criticism and feedback on expert witness work, contrasting the psychiatrist's positive response to the judge's words with the reaction of an expert witness in clinical negligence case, who rejected criticism of his evidence.

Impeding Access to Asylum: Title 42 “Expulsions” and Migrant Deaths in Southern Arizona

Executive Summary Immigration at the US-México border has drastically changed since the mid-2010s. Instead of adult undocumented Mexican men, generally migrating for economic purposes, there are now large numbers of men, women, unaccompanied minors, and families from diverse countries seeking asylum in the United States, as they are allowed to do under US and international law. In response to these changes, the US federal government leveraged multiple strategies to impede access to the country’s asylum system, including relying on Title 42 “expulsions.” Title 42, a COVID-19-era health measure, prevented migrants from initiating an asylum claim. Instead, asylum-seekers were typically immediately expelled to the closest port of entry in México. The use of public health as a pretext to control the border placed these migrants at risk and led many to attempt repeat border crossings. Given this policy context, we ask: what, if any, is the association between Title 42 expulsions and migrant deaths in southern Arizona? We address this question by drawing on records of recovered undocumented border crosser (UBC) remains investigated by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCOME) in Tucson, Arizona. We examined differences in the number and demographic characteristics of UBC remains recovered between what prior studies have characterized as the “Localized Funnel Effect” Era of border enforcement in southern Arizona (i.e., October 1, 2013–March 19, 2020; N = 851), and the “Title 42” Era (i.e., March 20, 2021–September 30, 2023; N = 709). We also assessed how, if at all, the geography of recovered UBC remains shifted between these eras. We found that migrant deaths rose from an annual mean of 133 during the Localized Funnel Effect (LFE) Era to 198 in the Title 42 (T42) Era, representing a 48 percent increase. Compared to the earlier era, remains recovered during the T42 Era clustered closer to the border and near the cities of Nogales and Agua Prieta, Sonora, having shifted from west to east in southern Arizona. Additionally, we found that Title 42 disproportionately affected Mexican and Guatemalan nationals both in terms of expulsions as well as deaths. We propose several policy recommendations based on our study’s findings intended to reduce unnecessary suffering and increase human security: • The US federal government should not impede or limit migrants’ access to the asylum system. Policymakers should instead create clear pathways and procedures that obviate the need for migrants to undertake dangerous journeys and overcome barriers to fair consideration of their claims. • The US government must expand its ability to address these claims, as continued attempts to block asylum seekers will result in additional loss of life and increased violence. It should increase its capacity to screen asylum seekers at the US-México border. We propose an increase in USCIS Asylum Officers to carry out this duty. US Customs and Border Protection agents should not screen asylum seekers, nor should they assume the responsibility of serving as asylum officers, given the agency’s extensively documented record of persistently dehumanizing and mistreating migrants. • The US federal government must take measures to eliminate the backlog of asylum cases in the immigration courts. These measures need to include reforms in the underlying immigration system and in the removal adjudication system, such as greater access to legal counsel and changes to the law that offer legal pathways to imperiled migrants who do not meet the narrow definition of asylum. Absent these reforms, the asylum case backlog will grow, and many asylum seekers with strong claims to remain will be removed after living for years in the United States.

Undeterred: Understanding Repeat Migration in Northern Central America

Executive Summary U.S. efforts to control unauthorized crossings of its southwest border have long rested on the idea of deterrence — if migrants know that a border is dangerous to cross and the likelihood of deportation is high, they will be dissuaded from trying in the first place. Despite the seemingly intuitive logic of this strategy, and the billions of dollars invested in it, deterrence efforts largely have failed, with the number of border crossings in recent years exceeding those of 30 years ago. To understand why this decades-old, bipartisan deterrence strategy has proven ineffective, we focus on individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who have previous migration experience, with a vast majority of them seeking entry into the U.S. These individuals have direct knowledge of the difficulties and dangers a border crossing poses, yet many report plans to try to cross the border again. To understand why they persist, we rely on survey data specifically collected to better understand the root causes of international migration. We find that citizens with previous migration experience are significantly more likely to report plans to emigrate, in particular women, younger cohorts, and those at the bottom of the economic ladder. In contrast, family reunification does not appear to play a significant role in driving the migration intentions of those with a prior migration experience. Further, deportation does not deter migrants from trying again, as individuals who have been deported are just as likely to report plans to emigrate again as those who returned to their home countries voluntarily and those who never reached their destination. Most importantly, our research indicates that human insecurity is at the core of why Central Americans who have migrated in the past are more likely to report migration plans for the future. Both the threat of violence and food insecurity are central drivers of their persistent predisposition to embark on the journey again. Individuals remain undeterred in their efforts to escape their country because upon returning to that country, they confront the same conditions that led them to attempt to flee in the first place. We draw two main policy implications from our research. First, the U.S. government should continue its prioritization of investments in tackling the root causes of forced migration through the empowerment of civil society organizations and the channeling of foreign aid to marginalized communities affected by human insecurity, such as those suffering food insecurity or fearing violence. The main objective of these investments should be to improve the living conditions of individuals, giving them a viable option of remaining in their country. Second, the U.S. must invest greater resources in its immigration system to reduce the current backlog of asylum cases, and expand H2-a and -b visa programs to provide a more expansive legal path to migration. Facilitating a legal pathway to immigrants who face heightened human insecurity, like the potential repeat migrants in our study, would prevent further deaths that lay at the hands of a border policy focused on deterrence.

Contested and unheard voices within the asylum framework – participation challenges of unaccompanied minors in Germany and Norway

ABSTRACT The construction of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers (UMAs) as a vulnerable group places UMAs into a social category that the welfare state is required to deal with. In general, welfare states have the choice of addressing UMAs’ needs, either under the scope of the asylum system combined with special provisions, or to place them on a separate track and thus exclude them from ordinary migration framework. This article takes a comparative analysis of the Norwegian (migration track) and German (separate track) asylum and welfare system on how the regulations available for UMAs intersect and how these procedures shape the lived experiences of UMAs and their options for participation in their decisions on their asylum cases, as well as in their everyday lives. When discussing three characteristics of UMA status (their position as protection seeker, as under age, as unaccompanied), we will especially focus on participation rights in how regulations regarding the age assessment, asylum procedure, residence status, legal representation and welfare provisions are applied in practice. To this end, we will highlight experiences of UMA gathered through interviews in Norway and Germany.

Explaining Asylum Law Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis

This article demonstrates how Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) can be applied to the study of case law, with an emphasis on the granular analysis of jurisprudence. This article’s empirical focus is a study of asylum decisions issued by the US Circuit Courts. Prior research, using statistical methods, has observed disparities in asylum case outcomes that are partly explained by sociopolitical factors such as the partisan affiliation, gender, and home-state politics of the judiciary. This article uses QCA to revisit these findings; incorporating an analysis of jurisprudential criteria alongside the sociopolitical factors that have been identified by prior studies. All of the Circuit Court decisions for the cases included in the QCA analysis were issued during the first year of the Trump presidency; a time at which asylum-seekers at the US–Mexico border were becoming a focal point both for immigration enforcement and a polarized national debate over immigration policy. Despite the charged political context for these decisions, the QCA findings show that the two most decisive factors for Circuit Court decision-making on these cases were their rulings on nexus and patterns of decision-making that were specific to each court. The closing discussion cautions the reader against generalizing these findings to all appellate-level asylum decisions out of consideration for the epistemological orientation of QCA. Hence, the findings from this study should not be taken as conclusive evidence that sociopolitical factors are of little causal value for research on the appellate courts. Nevertheless, the findings do indicate that more attention should be paid to the explanatory power of jurisprudence. The concluding discussion also highlights the potential that QCA holds for building out a logic-based theory of legal decision making that can account for jurisprudence in tandem with sociopolitical factors and localized cultures of decision-making that help to explain disparate applications of the law.

I balance suffering(s): The politics and moralities of humanitarian caseworkers in Egypt as a refugee transit point

AbstractIn a world where asylum and migration have become major concerns for countries of transit and destination, political neutrality seems to be demanded from humanitarian workers. But under the pressures of workload, limited funds, and complex settings, these actors deviate from expectations and practice extra‐legal authority of a unique political nature. When handling asylum cases, these agents take crucial decisions that decisively impact the lives of asylum seekers. In legally fragile transit points where the rule of law faces challenges and where asylum seekers come seeking further resettlement in European countries, rejected applicants face risky fates of deportation, jail, violence, or death. In turn, humanitarian caseworkers pushed by workloads, purse strings, emotional burnout, and compassion fatigue, flatten the sufferings of their applicants, balance, and rank them. Caseworkers have to rank sufferings and decide who may eventually survive and who may simply be left to a risky unknown. In Agambian terms, this extralegal authority draws the lines, creates a zone of exception and throws rejected applicants into the realm of “Bare Life” where they become “Homo Sacer,” whose life is worthless. Using Lipsky's theorization of street‐level bureaucrats and in‐depth interviews, the paper tackles these crucial issues by interviewing caseworkers from a variety of international organizations operating in the transit point of Egypt. These caseworkers are responsible for conducting different roles in the Refugee Status Determination process.

'Your heart is resting and pumping at the same time': Mental health impact of seeking asylum among sexual minority men.

To explore the experiences of seeking asylum and its impact on mental health among sexual minority forced migrant cisgender men living in Sweden. Exploratory qualitative study based on individual semi-structured interviews with 15 adult gay and bisexual cisgender men recruited via a combination of purposeful, convenience and snowball sampling. Data were analysed with systematic text condensation through a collaborative approach with three migrants with lived experience. Seeking asylum had been an emotionally challenging journey for the participants in this study, involving several procedures that negatively impacted mental health. Being expected to disclose intimate information during asylum interviews had been a significant challenge, alongside needing to wait through long periods in uncertainty with little information about the progress of their asylum case. The behaviours and attitudes of professionals involved in the legal procedures had been a central aspect, as participants encountered interpreters and caseworkers who acted disrespectful and homophobic during asylum interviews. Participants mentioned that the behaviours of interpreters and the accuracy of the interpretation could influence the outcome of asylum claims and how comfortable they felt in sharing information. Thus, participants emphasized the importance of adequate and accurate interpreter services. Sexual minority men are faced with an unfamiliar and emotionally challenging position when seeking asylum and undergoing asylum interviews. The findings highlight the importance of adequate competence among professionals involved in asylum interviews, including interpreter utilization. Research is needed to determine effective methods to support these men throughout their asylum process.

Legal Interpretations of Trauma: The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Gender-Based Asylum Claims

This article is based on exploratory research on how the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals uses the language of trauma in gender-based asylum claims. Gender-based asylum claims include female genital mutilation (FGM), coercive population control (CPC) in the form of forced abortions and forced sterilizations, rape, forced marriage, and domestic violence. The Circuit Courts have reviewed appeals from petitioners with asylum claims since 1946, yet the language of trauma did not appear in the Court’s decisions until 1983. From 1983 to 2023, only 385, 3.85% or less, of the over 10,000 asylum cases before the Circuit Courts used the language of trauma in its legal interpretation of persecution. I have identified 101 gender-based asylum cases that were reviewed by one of the eleven U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that apply the language of trauma in its legal interpretation of persecution for this analysis. The research question guiding this study is: how does the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals use the language of trauma when reviewing gender-based asylum cases? This study found that U.S. Circuit Courts use the language of trauma in four ways: precedent cases, policies and reports, physical trauma, and psychological trauma when reviewing gender-based asylum claims. This study provides the first data set of gender-based asylum claims under review at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that use the language of trauma.

Anmälan. Annkatrin Meyerson, To believe or not to believe – is that the question? A critical study of how the Swedish migration courts handle their responsibility to judge in asylum cases, Juridiska institutionen, Handelshögskolan vid Göteborgs universitet, 2023, 324 sidor, 3 appendix

Anmälan. Annkatrin Meyerson, To believe or not to believe – is that the question? A critical study of how the Swedish migration courts handle their responsibility to judge in asylum cases, Juridiska institutionen, Handelshögskolan vid Göteborgs universitet, 2023, 324 sidor, 3 appendix

Gender in European Union Asylum Law: The Istanbul Convention as a Game Changer?

Abstract The European Union (EU) has historically been a proactive player in advancing equality between women and men, and fighting gender-based discrimination. The past two decades have also seen the EU becoming a major actor in asylum law, with several EU secondary law instruments and a large amount of case law in EU Member States relating to the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Yet, these two areas of EU legislation – gender equality and asylum – have yet to become consistently connected. Similarly, judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union addressing gender-related elements of asylum cases are scarce. Could the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) help bridge the gap? The Istanbul Convention identifies gender-based violence as an extreme form of discrimination and contains a whole chapter dedicated to women in the context of migration. This article sheds light on the yet-to-be-realized potential of the Istanbul Convention to amplify the protective power of the Refugee Convention in the EU. While at present neither the Common European Asylum System, nor its new iteration in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, fully meets the standards of the Istanbul Convention, it may be expected that the EU’s accession to the treaty will further encourage a gender-sensitive approach in EU asylum law. The Istanbul Convention may well be a game changer for the protection of female asylum seekers, and possibly also for asylum seekers with other gender identities.

Leveraging Country Expertise: How Scholars in International Studies Can Support the Asylum Process

Abstract Bridging the divide between research and practice has become a growing concern within international studies. One under-explored avenue through which international studies scholars can enhance their “real world” impact is by serving as country conditions experts in asylum cases. This article provides an overview of the asylum process, the role of country conditions experts within it, and how scholars with in-depth country knowledge can leverage their expertise to make a difference, using examples from the United States and the United Kingdom. It also details several key issues one should consider when deciding whether to undertake expert witness work and the challenges and dilemmas it often entails. Finally, we provide actionable ways for international studies scholars to get involved and expand the community of individuals engaged in expert witnessing.

An Empirical Analysis of Credibility Assessment in German Asylum Cases – CORRIGENDUM

An Empirical Analysis of Credibility Assessment in German Asylum Cases – CORRIGENDUM

The More Favourable Provision Clause in EU Migration Law: Expanding Fundamental Rights through National Discretion?

Abstract Interaction between different levels of fundamental rights protection is a widely debated topic in EU scholarship, which has long dealt with situations in which national legislation lowered legal standards in the EU. Less explored, however, is the opposite case: when Member State regulations set standards higher than those enshrined at EU level. This can occur through application of the more favourable provision (MFP) clause – commonly enshrined in EU directives dealing with (but not limited to) immigration and asylum. Under it, Member States can apply more favourable standards insofar as they comply with EU legislation. Though seldom discussed in existing literature, the MFP clause is a critical issue of EU migration law and illustrative of challenges facing the EU constitutional order, for it highlights the relationship between fundamental rights protection in the multi-layered EU system and general principles of EU law. Against this backdrop, this paper will investigate the features of the MFP clause in EU migration law and analyse the CJEU’s adjudication in immigration and asylum cases, exploring its reasoning in testing application of MFP clause against EU law.

Asylum and Refugee Issues in the Case Law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia

This study examines the role of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia in addressing asylum and refugee issues. It examines the constitutional and statutory regulations surrounding international protection, the procedure for the recognition of and statistical data on international protection, and the legal remedies available in asylum and refugee cases, with a particular focus on petitions for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and constitutional complaints. Further, it presents a comprehensive analysis of the relevant Constitutional Court’s case law, specifically concerning refugees, asylum seekers and individuals seeking subsidiary international protection. The findings reveal that the relevant case law can be categorised into two segments: those that deal with the successful challenges of statutory provisions, and those that pertain to the constitutional complaints of asylum seekers. Additionally, the Court frequently cites decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, however, less frequently the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, mentioning the case law of other countries is extremely rare. None of the Constitutional Court’s decisions concerning Slovenian constitutional identity are directly linked to refugee, asylum, or international protection issues. Nonetheless, it is plausible that the Court may change its approach to these areas in the near future.

Judicial Specialization and Deference in Asylum Cases on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Many look to the federal courts as an avenue of control of the growing administrative state. Some advocate the creation of specialized federal courts of appeals in areas such as immigration and social security. Yet, little is known about whether repeat exposure to specific types of cases enables federal judges to overcome doctrines of deference and whether such an effect would be policy-neutral. Gathering a sample of over 4000 cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 2002 and 2017, we demonstrate that exposure to asylum cases over time emboldens federal judges to challenge administrative asylum decisions, asserting their personal policy preferences. The effect is particularly strong when the legal issue should prompt deference based on bureaucratic expertise. These findings not only address important questions raised by bureaucracy and court scholars but also inform a salient public debate concerning the proper treatment of those seeking refuge within our borders.

The Road Not Taken

Many asylum cases present an opportunity for the European Court of Justice to promote and protect EU values such as human rights and the rule of law. Yet, in central issues on the EU asylum system, the Court has opted for careful and formal readings of law rather than exploring such perspectives. The Court’s legal reasoning in asylum is examined by case analyses in NF v Council on the EU-Turkey Statement, X and X on humanitarian visas, and A.S. and Jafari on the EU asylum system. In free movement, the Court is considered a key driver of integration, whereas, in asylum law, it is seen as more restrictive. Rather than promoting EU integration and ensuring human rights protections, the Court grants discretion to the legislator or the executive. There are legitimate reasons why a different path has been taken in asylum. However, as a more extensive and dynamic method of interpretation could increase human rights protections, it is relevant to reassess the position of the Court in asylum law.

Problems with the Asylum System and Their Solutions: Take Case of Colombia v. Peru on the Right of Asylum as an Example

The right of asylum in international law refers to the right of citizens of one country to enjoy asylum in another country, and in the interaction of sovereign states, the right of asylum is usually applied in the context of a citizen of a country requesting to enter another country or having entered another country for political reasons and in an emergency, and is approved by the government of another country. For a long time, there have been debates on the definition, establishment conditions and examination procedures of the right of asylum, and there have been many differences in the determination of the application of the right of sanctuary in practice. Based on the study of the Colombia v. Peru asylum case and the literature related to the right of asylum, this paper uses the comparative research method and the case analysis method to discuss the differences between the academic research on the right of asylum in the past and the present, and analyzes the problems and challenges of the asylum right system in the current international environment based on real cases, and finally provides suggestions for clarifying the criteria for determining the right of asylum in the form of a convention and formulating strict review procedures.