Trauma Exposures, Resilience Factors, and Mental Health Outcomes in Persons Granted Asylum in the U.S. for Claims Related to Domestic Violence and Persecution by Organized Gangs

Survivors of domestic violence (DV) and of violence perpetrated by organized gangs (GV) face barriers to legal protection under U.S. asylum law. We abstracted data from 132 affidavits based on forensic medical evaluations of asylum seekers granted legal protection in the U.S. on the basis of DV and/or GV. We described claimants’ trauma exposures and resilience factors and used multiple logistic regression to quantify associations with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) diagnoses and improvement in mental health. People seeking asylum based on DV and/or GV have endured multiple types of trauma with significant impacts on their mental health. New experiences of trauma following migration to the U.S. were common and associated with DSM-5 diagnoses. Conversely, resilience factors were associated with improved mental health. Policies that aim to reduce ongoing trauma in the U.S. and to bolster resilience factors may promote asylee mental health and well-being.

The establishment and development of the asylum institute (institution) in ancient states of the slavery period

The article is devoted to the analysis of the institution of asylum in practice and interstate relations of the ancient states of the slave-owning period. The author draws attention to the reasons for the emergence of the right to asylum and characterizes the right to asylum on the example of Ancient Egypt, the Kingdom of Israel, Ancient Greece, Rome, India It is concluded that the practice of granting asylum in these states was not the same, which is explained by the difference in the number of persons to whom such asylum was granted. In particular, attention is paid to the provision of asylum to slaves and the difference in its application to a free person. Two forms of asylum are described in ancient states: religious and territorial. When analyzing the religious form of asylum, the author draws attention to the various places where such asylum could be provided, examples of its use are given. The reasons for the impossibility of this type of shelter in ancient India are explained. A description of the territorial asylum is given and examples of international treaties concluded by ancient states that confirm its existence are given. It is concluded that religious asylum, which is currently unknown to modern international law, was the dominant form of asylum in ancient times. This is due to the special role of religion in the life of ancient states. Based on this, the author concludes that the institution of asylum law was more regulated by the rules of canon law than state, positive law. The state only determined the number of persons who could not use religious asylum and other equally important issues of the asylum procedure. As a result, the institution of asylum law emerged more as an institution of domestic rather than international law. However, in ancient times, many elements of the asylum institution that would make up its content in a later period were already present. This indicates the importance in the life of ancient society of the rules of the institution of asylum law. Attention is drawn to the reasons that motivate people to leave their homes and seek protection from harassment in shelters. Their similarity with the modern period is noted, which testifies to the urgency of the research topic.

Comparing European Union and Dutch asylum law procedures: Balancing efficiency and substantive examination in asylum applications

<p>Under international law refugee status is granted to those who fall within the definition of a refugee under the Refugee Convention 1951.¹ The Convention, however, does not implement any mechanisms which directly implement its principles. It is therefore up to the State to ensure that refugee rights are implemented directly. James Hathaway suggests two mechanisms to implement the Convention, namely solution-oriented temporary protection and shared responsibility among states, in order to safeguard practical access to meaningful asylum, but acknowledging that any system must take into account the self-interests of states and so must establish effective control systems and to minimize risks.² Although discussion on such proposals is beyond the ambit of this work, it is important as it shows that in the absence of any implementing or remedial mechanisms under the Convention, it is important to have a system which effectively balances the access to asylum with the interests of the State in keeping the risks and numbers of asylum seekers low.</p>

Comparing European Union and Dutch asylum law procedures: Balancing efficiency and substantive examination in asylum applications

<p>Under international law refugee status is granted to those who fall within the definition of a refugee under the Refugee Convention 1951.¹ The Convention, however, does not implement any mechanisms which directly implement its principles. It is therefore up to the State to ensure that refugee rights are implemented directly. James Hathaway suggests two mechanisms to implement the Convention, namely solution-oriented temporary protection and shared responsibility among states, in order to safeguard practical access to meaningful asylum, but acknowledging that any system must take into account the self-interests of states and so must establish effective control systems and to minimize risks.² Although discussion on such proposals is beyond the ambit of this work, it is important as it shows that in the absence of any implementing or remedial mechanisms under the Convention, it is important to have a system which effectively balances the access to asylum with the interests of the State in keeping the risks and numbers of asylum seekers low.</p>

Collectivized Discretion: Seeking Explanations for Decreased Asylum Recognition Rates in Finland After Europe's 2015 “Refugee Crisis”

In 2015, during the so-called “refugee crisis” in Europe, Finland was among the European countries receiving exceptionally large numbers of asylum applications. As the volume of asylum applications surged, however, the percentage of positive asylum decisions in Finland declined substantially. In this article, we explore reasons for this dramatic drop in recognitions rates and examine Finnish immigration control authorities’ use of discretion in asylum credibility assessment. Our approach is unique in its application of mixed methods to examine asylum decisions in pre- and post-crisis situations. We found that asylum caseworkers’ inconsistent assessment of similar facts and lack of faith in the veracity of applicants’ claims were essential to the mass denial of young Iraqi asylum applicants in Finland. This finding is important because it illustrates how asylum officers are able to “shift the border,” or generate a shift in asylum decision-making on a grand scale, without meaningful changes in law. Asylum officers, we show, are able to bring about such a shift via what we call collectivized discretion, or large-scale use of discretion, in asylum status determinations to control migration. Prior research on discretion in asylum decision-making highlights the individual decision-maker. This article expands discretion research by offering new insights on large-scale, collective discretionary shifts in the application of asylum law. We conclude that it is crucial that asylum status determinations be anchored in the individual assessment of each applicant's case, as collectivized discretion can lead to arbitrary results in the application of asylum law, potentially forcing those in need of refugee protection to face deportation.

Migrant vulnerability or asylum seeker/refugee vulnerability? More than complex categories

The current theoretical socio-legal approach to vulnerability and vulnerable individuals, groups and populations is complex and wide-ranging. Unlike other traditional categories of “vulnerable groups”, the specific dimensions of migrant vulnerability raise issues that have not been properly resolved by laws, policies or judicial interpretation. This paper seeks to review and explain the reasons for the black-and-white legal categorical distinction between two types of people who migrate: “voluntary” migrants (economic, undocumented), and forced migrants (asylum seekers, refugees), based on their presumed internal or external “vulnerability”. It also reviews European asylum law to analyse the complex classification of asylum seeker/refugee vulnerability. This can help explain why some “particularly vulnerable categories” in compounded situations of intersectional vulnerability risk falling between the cracks. There is an urgent need to reassess the bivalent categories and the compact dimensions of migrant vulnerability, in order to find balanced internal coherence in the regulations that manage heterogeneous migration processes.

Migrating with Dignity: Conceptualising Human Dignity Through EU Migration Law

Human dignity in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Human dignity in EU migration law, particularly in the area of asylum law and irregular migration – Requirement of dignified treatment of third-country nationals in the EU – Relationship between human dignity and substantive values such as tolerance, identity, rights, justice, and the law – Human dignity as a moral right, a legal status, and a political status – Human dignity as a moral principle with a legal pedigree, which underpins determinations of the scope of rights of third-country nationals in EU migration law