Search

Begin New Search Topic Asylum Seekers

1. El Salvador, No Place for Asylum Seekers

Author:
Laura Blume, Stephanie Sosa, and Andrea García Rodríguez
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
Deported from the United States without due process, asylum seekers now face political persecution and deadly conditions in El Salvador’s mega-prisons as the Trump administration outsources cruelty to the Bukele regime.
Topic:
Prisons/Penal Systems, Donald Trump, Deportation, Due Process, Nayib Bukele, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Central America, El Salvador, and United States of America

2. Nationality and the Right to Enter: Assessing the Impact of Refusal of Entry for the Purpose of Statelessness Determination

Author:
Cecilia Manzotti
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Statelessness & Citizenship Review
Institution:
Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Melbourne Law School
Abstract:
This article considers the legal situation of migrants, including rejected asylum seekers, who are unable to enter what was, until then, regarded as their country of nationality. This is because that country, without explicitly disputing their nationality, either prohibits their entry or de facto prevents them from entering its territory by failing to issue travel documents or respond to requests for consular assistance for organising return. By examining the conceptualisation of nationality in international law on the one hand, and the international legal definition of a stateless person on the other hand, the article argues that the right to enter the territory of one’s state is so essential to the concept of nationality that refusal of entry and denial of consular assistance for arranging return should be regarded as evidence that the state does not consider a person as its national. Based on this argument, the article further assesses the suitability of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ guidance on statelessness determination in cases of direct or indirect denial of entry. Ultimately, this contribution aims to clarify the scope of the international legal definition of a stateless person by strongly grounding its interpretation in the conceptualisation of nationality in international law.
Topic:
Nationality, Migrants, Right of Entry, Refusal of Entry, Statelessness, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. The Making and Diasporization of Iranian Sexual, Religious, and Political Asylum Seekers

Author:
Navid Fozi
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Since the 1979 Revolution in Iran, waves of Iranian migrants, mostly asylum seekers, have formed diasporas composed of four to six million people.1 Asylum- seeking thus illustrates one of the most significant modes of Iranian global mobil- ity. The continuous revolutionary conditions perpetuated by the Revolutionary Guards and Revolutionary Courts have been identified as the sole contributor to the diasporization of Iranians.2 I argue that such a myopic focus on revolutionary moments obfuscates the marginalizing historical processes that have shaped asylum- seeking as a means of engagement with domestic and global inequality. The Islamic Republic has heralded a culmination of Iranian diasporic displacement unleashed by the deterritorializing effects of neoliberal world capitalism through economic globalization and mobility to meet labor demand.3 Coupled with the apparatuses of the modern nation-state, the judiciary, police, and education system have given the traditional exclusionary practices a modern character. I will draw on my fieldwork with Iranian asylum seekers and refugees in tran- sit through Türkiye pursuing permanent resettlement, mainly in North America, Australia, and Europe. These Iranians compose heterogeneous populations that embark on an arduous journey from the Global South to the Global North. They form diasporas of communities whose marginality in Iran predates the Islamic Re- public. Each group finds its own niche while becoming part of the Iranian diaspora. Bahá’ís born into Bahá’i families, heterodox Muslim mystics, and the ethno-religious communities of Kurdish Yársán constitute a group of Iranian asylum seekers who embrace religious ideals and practices that differ from Iran’s official religion: Shīʿi Twelver Islam. As I discuss later, this Shīʿi strand developed in sixteenth-century Iran and promoted a messianic expectation for the return of the twelfth Shīʿi Imam.
Topic:
Religion, Diaspora, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

4. La activación de la directiva de protección temporal ante la invasión rusa de Ucrania como instrumento de diplomacia migratoria

Author:
José Díaz Lafuente
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
La Directiva de Protección Temporal constituye uno de los instrumentos jurídicos más controvertidos y debatidos del acervo comunitario. A pesar de los múltiples desplazamientos masivos vividos en Europa en las últimas dos décadas, la Directiva es activada por primera vez el 4 de marzo de 2022, tras la invasión rusa de Ucrania, representado un acuerdo histórico y un hito de solidaridad que ya ha servido para ofrecer protección temporal a más de 4,15 millones de ciudadanos extracomunitarios. El principal objetivo del presente artículo radica en el estudio de la activación de este mecanismo en el marco de la diplomacia migratoria de la UE, analizando los motivos que han podido conducir a su inmediata implementación y los elementos de la actual gestión de situaciones de afluencia masiva en la política migratoria, de asilo y fronteriza de la Unión.
Topic:
European Union, Russia-Ukraine War, Asylum Seekers, and Temporary Protection Visas
Political Geography:
Europe and Ukraine

5. Asylum Capacity Development: Building New and Strengthening Existing Systems

Author:
Brian Barbour
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
Refugees are guaranteed a set of rights under international law, but whether a refugee can enjoy those rights depends on the asylum system that they encounter in the country where they seek refuge. An ‘asylum system’ can be understood as the legal, institutional, and social arrangements in place to meet the needs of refugees. Asylum capacity development (ACD) is the emerging area of policy and practice concerned with strengthening asylum systems. The concept of ACD is still being developed, but there is a tendency to equate ACD with building State capacity to conduct refugee status determination (RSD); that is, the institutional processes in place to decide asylum claims. The success of ACD is sometimes measured by the passage of legislation or regulations, the establishment of a new RSD unit, or ‘handover’ of RSD functions from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to the State. ACD is often centred on building government capacity, without engaging civil society actors. A focus on RSD alone will not equip States to meet the diverse protection needs of refugees in practice. In the worst-case scenario, asylum systems are established that do not meet relevant needs or resolve asylum cases, resulting in frustrations for both people seeking asylum and governments. When non-governmental stakeholders are excluded, key capacities may be missing and there is no shared ownership of the asylum system that is established. Clarifying the purpose and scope of ACD is important to ensuring that initiatives to strengthen asylum systems are effective. This Policy Brief seeks to contribute to both the conceptual and operational development of ACD, by setting out an approach to strengthening asylum systems that is grounded in the protection needs of refugees and reflects a whole-of-society approach. ACD can be conceptualised as the process of developing institutional, national, and local capacity so that States and UNHCR, in collaboration with individuals, organisations, and society as a whole, can each do their part to meet the protection needs of refugees and resolve protection claims effectively, efficiently, fairly and sustainably. This Policy Brief provides practical guidance by setting out a framework that can be used to evaluate existing or proposed asylum systems. While there is a remarkable diversity among asylum systems around the globe, a comparative analysis of State practice reveals that effective asylum systems share a number of common characteristics. This Policy Brief identifies eleven characteristics: accessibility; specialisation; expertise; independence and impartiality; transparency; integrity; accountability; efficiency; adaptability; and collaboration. This Policy Brief provides a set of indicators that can measure progress towards achievement of these characteristics or standards. This Policy Brief promotes a needs-based approach that seeks to develop capacities or scale them up, in order to meet the identified needs of refugees. It also emphasises the importance of a wholeof-society approach that engages all stakeholders, governmental and non-governmental, with the capacity to contribute. A well-coordinated platform for cooperation and coordination among all relevant stakeholders should be a target of ACD. Ultimately, the success of ACD efforts should be assessed with reference to whether there are improved protection outcomes for refugees, and whether case processing capacity is strengthened such that asylum claims can be resolved effectively, efficiently, fairly, and sustainably.
Topic:
International Law, Refugees, Capacity, Protection, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Temporary Protection Visas in Australia: A reform proposal

Author:
Mary Anne Kenny, Nicholas Procter, and Carol Grech
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The election of a new government in May 2022 provides an opportune moment to reassess Australia’s approach to refugees and people seeking asylum. The Labor government has signalled that our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers needs to change—to provide people with greater certainty and more durable protection, and to enable the Australian community to benefit more fully from their contribution. One of the most detrimental elements of Australian refugee law and policy in the past decade has been the use of temporary visas. Temporary protection has been the only option available for people who arrived by boat and were recognised as refugees. Known as the ‘legacy caseload’, these people are caught in a system of law and policy that keeps them in a state of perpetual limbo. This is an inhumane, unsustainable, and inefficient system that inflicts mental harm and creates costly, bureaucratic burdens. Providing permanent protection to the 31,000 men, women, and children in this group—many of whom have been recognised by Australia as refugees in need of protection—would provide them with a resolution of their legal status and enable them to move forward with their lives, while also acknowledging the significant contribution this group has already made to the community through work and social engagement. This Policy Brief provides concrete recommendations about how to move refugees on temporary visas to permanent visas—using existing powers under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and minor amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)—as well as recommendations for people whose protection claims have not yet been assessed, or have been refused. The 17 recommendations are intended as a package of coherent and inter-related measures, rather than a suite of different options.
Topic:
Reform, Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Temporary Protection Visas
Political Geography:
Australia

7. Cruel, costly and ineffective: The failure of offshore processing in Australia

Author:
Madeline Gleeson and Natasha Yacoub
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
‘Offshore processing’ is a method of border control which involves forcibly transferring asylum seekers to third States to have their claims processed.1 It is not a new phenomenon. 2 However, whereas offshore processing was previously viewed as ‘a significant exception to the normal practice’,3 Australia’s development of the policy over the past two decades has generated significant political interest elsewhere, such that other countries are looking to replicate it. 4 In light of this development, this policy brief critically assesses Australia’s experience of offshore processing against its stated policy objectives and other indicators of success or failure, including its cost, lawfulness and impact on the people subject to it. For most of the past two decades, offshore processing has been a hallmark of Australia’s approach to deterring people from seeking asylum by boat. First established by a conservative Coalition government in 2001, the policy operated until 2008 when it was dismantled by the new Labor government as an abject policy failure. Despite that assessment, Labor re-established offshore processing in 2012 following an increase in the number of people trying to reach Australia by boat, and a political impasse in Parliament as to how this should be addressed. In its second iteration, offshore processing saw asylum seekers transferred to Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) for two years, under shifting policy settings, before Australia ceased new transfers in 2014 and reoriented its border protection policies to maritime interception. While offshore processing formally remains part of Australia’s asylum policy in 2021, Australia has spent considerable effort and money since 2014 trying unsuccessfully to extract itself from its arrangements in Nauru and PNG. This policy brief explores the objectives and practice of offshore processing since 2012, highlighting four distinct phases of the policy. It analyses the failure of offshore processing to achieve its border protection, humanitarian and foreign policy aims. In particular, it finds that the Australian model of offshore processing: • does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; • does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and • suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty.
Topic:
Border Control, Offshoring, Migration Policy, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Australia

8. Comparative perspectives on airport asylum procedures before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Author:
Regina Jefferies
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented border restrictions and closures around the world, slowing international air travel to a fraction of its pre-pandemic levels. Yet, persecution, conflict, disasters and violence – at times exacerbated by COVID-19 –continue to displace millions of people, forcing many to seek safety in other countries. Problematically, many States’ pandemic-related border restrictions have failed to provide exceptions for refugees and people seeking asylum.1 This has not only left people at risk of serious harm but has potentially resulted in numerous instances of refoulement. Even prior to the pandemic, overlapping international legal regimes governing air travel, passenger processing and international protection created particular difficulties for refugees and people seeking asylum, who were often unable to satisfy visa or other documentary requirements.2 Arguably, these have become even more entrenched during the pandemic, especially as some States have used COVID-19 as a cover for justifying blanket restrictions. Furthermore, in practical terms, limits on ‘non-essential’ travel have drastically reduced the number of flights available and severely curtailed access to air travel. This Policy Brief examines how different countries have dealt with international protection needs during the pandemic and provides guidance moving forward. It does so by examining the pre-pandemic use of airport asylum procedures in seven different countries (Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Uganda and the United States), as well as those countries’ subsequent use of border restrictions and/or closures in response to COVID-19. By reviewing a range of different approaches, it highlights persistent issues of transparency, procedural fairness and accountability that pre-date – but have been exacerbated by – the pandemic. With respect to measures suspending or limiting air travel, it identifies a number of recommended practices to ensure that States continue to meet their international protection obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers, while also responding to public health concerns. Although human rights law permits States to impose exceptional measures in a public health emergency (which must be necessary, proportionate and reasonable, as well as non-discriminatory), international law still requires that people seeking protection are given an effective opportunity to do so. As such, no risk to public health can justify a State denying asylum seekers and refugees access to their territory without appropriate safeguards to prevent refoulement and safeguard minimum rights.
Topic:
Borders, Mobility, COVID-19, Protection, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

9. Safe Journeys and Sound Policy: Expanding protected entry for refugees

Author:
Claire Higgins
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
Protected entry procedures are visa mechanisms that allow individuals to apply for entry into another country for the purpose of accessing protection under international refugee or human rights law. Procedures are made available within countries of origin or first asylum, their primary function being to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees can travel safely across international borders and avoid potentially dangerous or exploitative irregular journeys. This Policy Brief draws on past and current State practice to outline what these procedures look like, and how they should operate as tools of refugee protection. It speaks to a core objective of the Global Compact on Refugees, which is to expand access to third-country solutions for refugees and asylum seekers. Forced migration is currently at record highs worldwide, but not all those who are displaced will want or need to move outside their region of origin. UNHCR has identified a relatively small number of refugees, 1.4 million people, as needing resettlement under its annual program in 2020. This means that States could make a real difference by expanding the use of protected entry procedures and other complementary pathways to increase access to protection and solutions.
Topic:
Refugees, Forced Migration, Protection, Migration Policy, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. The Interdiction of Asylum Seekers at Sea: Law and (mal)practice in Europe and Australia

Author:
Violeta Moreno-Lax
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The phenomenon of irregular migration by sea or ‘boat migration’ is not new, 1 but it has drawn significant attention since the Tampa affair in Australia in 2001 and during the so-called ‘migration/refugee crisis’ in the Mediterranean in 2015–2016. Both regions have replaced proactive search and rescue (SAR) efforts with militarised border security missions, which has had detrimental effects on those seeking asylum. This policy brief explores this evolution and critically evaluates policies and practices of deterrence at sea against the standards set by international law. It considers:  State powers of interception, as regulated by the law of the sea for the different maritime zones, in particular as they relate to flagless (migrant) vessels;  The duties of SAR for flag and coastal States, clarifying notions of ‘distress’, ‘rescue’, ‘disembarkation’ and ‘place of safety’ as applied to asylum seekers;  The interaction of State obligations under the law of the sea with their obligations under human rights and refugee law, especially with respect to the principle of non-refoulement, non-arbitrary detention and due process guarantees, as well as issues of extraterritoriality and ‘effective control’. The policy brief concludes that current strategies in Europe and Australia are not viable in the long term. It recommends that both regions abandon practices of containment without protection, engage in genuine SAR actions, and embrace a comprehensive approach to ‘boat migration’ that conforms with States’ international legal obligations and the rights of refugees and migrants.
Topic:
International Law, Migration, Refugee Crisis, Deterrence, Protection, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Europe and Australia