By Human Rights Watch

The 39-page report, “Injustice By Design: Need for Comprehensive Justice Reform in Libya,” documents how outdated and repressive legislation, lack of fair trial rights, and rampant due process violations urgently need reform. Unsafe conditions for judicial staff, abusive military trials of civilians, and inhumane conditions in prisons compound abuses and entrench impunity.

Human Rights Watch, June 2, 2025, p. 39

By Amnesty International

In this report, Amnesty International analyzes the migratory regularization measures and procedures for the recognition of refugee status implemented by Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile, states that host nearly 70% of the 7.32 million Venezuelan people who have fled a complex humanitarian emergency and widespread and systematic violations of their civil and political rights in Venezuela. Based on the findings and conclusions of this investigation, Amnesty International makes a number of recommendations to the relevant authorities.

London: Amnesty International 2023. 42p.

By Tony Payan, José Iván Rodríguez-Sánchez

Irregular migration at the U.S.-Mexico border has emerged as a defining political issue in the 21st century. One challenge has been the U.S. government’s ongoing struggle to manage surges in border arrivals. Streamlining asylum processing — deporting those who do not qualify and resettling those who do — could help reduce political tensions. Migration patterns also fluctuate for reasons beyond U.S. control. Encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border reached record highs in 2023 before dropping sharply in 2024, a trend seen repeatedly over the past 15 years.

An increasing number of Americans view immigration as a long-term issue that requires stronger measures. Diverging views on immigration have contributed to deep divisions within the American electorate, with candidates advocating for stricter policies gaining support. President Donald Trump, for example, has linked irregular migration with risks to national security, public safety, and the economy. In both of his presidential campaigns, he pledged swift action on immigration, with mass deportation of undocumented migrants being a cornerstone of his second term program.

This brief explores the impacts of Trump’s immigration policy, with particular attention to the economic and social costs of large-scale deportations.

Houston, TX: Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2025. 15p.

By Bill Frelick, Martina Rapido Ragozzino, and Michael Garcia Bochenek

Between February 12 and 15, 2025, the US government expelled 299 third-country nationals to Panama after they crossed the US-Mexico border, most of whom were seeking asylum, following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. Many of these people had fled persecution due to ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, family ties, and political views. “Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened”: The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama documents this abusive mass expulsion, exposing the harsh detention conditions and mistreatment in the United States, beyond being denied due process and the right to seek asylum there. It also details their incommunicado detention in Panama, where authorities confiscated their phones, blocked visitors, and isolated them from the outside world. Of the 299 expelled, 179 were later returned to their home countries under the International Organization for Migration’s “assisted voluntary return” program—though the conditions of their confinement and the limited options they were given raise serious doubts about the voluntariness of those returns. The United States should allow those wrongfully removed to return and seek asylum in accordance with its international legal obligations. It should stop violating the principle of nonrefoulement by processing asylum claims of those arriving at the US border, rather than outsourcing responsibility to countries with far less capacity to examine asylum claims or to provide protection to those needing it. Panama should ensure that those it agreed to take can fairly access asylum and avoid complicity in US abuses

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2025. 45p.

By Taylor Koehler

Throughout the last decade, international human rights experts and monitoring bodies have expressed deep concern over States’ increased use of immigration detention. A primary reason for this concern is that States regularly impose immigration detention arbitrarily, and in so doing, render detained persons more vulnerable to violations of the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. As U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer explained in his 2018 report to the U.N. Security Council on migration-related torture and ill-treatment: “While not every case of arbitrary detention will automatically amount to torture or ill-treatment, there is an undeniable link between both prohibitions … experience shows that any form of arbitrary detention exposes migrants to increased risks of torture and ill-treatment.” While considerable analysis of components of the immigration detention system in the U.S. under international law, particularly the prohibition on torture and other ill treatment, have been completed, there have been few attempts to bring all these different analyses together to look at the U.S. immigration system as a complete whole. This backgrounder, and the more in-depth legal analysis on which it is based (linked above), attempt to fill this gap. The report analyzes the U.N. Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (Convention against Torture) and other international and regional legal authorities. It draws on CVT’s decades-long clinical experience providing care to survivors of torture, including formerly detained asylum seekers, and highlights reports of wide-ranging abuses at immigration detention centers such as Stewart and Irwin County Detention Centers, located in Georgia where CVT has operated a survivor of torture program for the past five years. The report ultimately concludes both that the system is arbitrary and that U.S. immigration detention systematically exposes detained migrants to violations of the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Indeed, it finds that the current system’s defects are structural and pervasive to a degree that the system must be phased out entirely to bring the United States into compliance with its international legal obligations.

Center for Victims of Torture, 2021. 21p

By Sana Singh

For years, countless immigrant Californians have been calling attention to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) discriminatory practices that assist in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) deportation efforts. CDCR staff identify individuals in their custody, whom CDCR assumes to be born outside of the U.S., report them to ICE, and deny them valuable rehabilitation, education, and credit-earning opportunities. In 2022, the ACLU of Northern California filed a major public records request seeking communications between CDCR and ICE. Over the past several months, the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, and Root & Rebound have analyzed over 2,500 CDCR records and emails between August and September 2022. Step by step, the team pieced together a more detailed view than ever before into how CDCR voluntarily goes to horrifying lengths to illegally discriminate against Californians born outside the U.S. and against anyone CDCR officers unilaterally perceive or assume to be born outside the U.S. Dozens of previously unseen emails show how California’s largest public agency is using public resources to operate a system of double punishment that rips apart immigrant and refugee families and communities, in direct conflict with California’s values of equality, fairness, and justice. In their zeal to collude with ICE, CDCR is not only targeting people who have served their time and are set to return home for detention and deportation but is also sweeping up U.S. citizens and Green Card holders, relying on racist assumptions and ignoring their own records. CDCR’s practices are also increasingly out of step with the rest of California and statewide officials’ own commitments to their constituents. Many counties across California, including Los Angeles, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz, Humboldt, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, have already stopped facilitating transfers of people to ICE after they have served their time in jail or prison. Governor Newsom has recently called on California to “be in the homecoming business,” and CDCR Secretary Macomber has stated his intentions to “create a space focused on preparing individuals for successful returns to the community.” CDCR’s practices raise urgent legal and policy questions and implicate the fundamental rights of numerous Californians in CDCR custody, adding further to the agency’s deeply troubling record of medical abuse and neglect, warehousing of people in long-term solitary confinement, racist and antisemitic social media comments, and forced sterilizations, among other concerning practices. The human costs of CDCR’s collusion with ICE are severe, as revealed in disturbing email records in the report that follows. By proactively offering people up to ICE, CDCR has engineered a two-tiered system of justice that brings trauma to those in their custody The emails reviewed by the investigative team and described below are communications from August and September 2022. Despite the narrow timeframe of these records, the records we have received paint a disturbing picture. In just the two months the below communications span, CDCR transferred over 200 people from CDCR facilities to ICE custody. What follows is a description of the practices that CDCR uses to collude with ICE, and examples of discrimination, indiscretion, resource mismanagement, and anti-immigrant behavior by department staff, as revealed in disturbing email records. We conclude with a summary of the harms caused and the need for legislative action. and to their loved ones. The impact of such discriminatory practices is felt widely in California, which is home to the largest immigrant population in the country. In 2021, over a quarter of Californians were foreign-born and almost half of the children in the state had at least one immigrant parent. In 2023, California lawmakers can take immediate action to hold CDCR accountable to the state’s values and laws. AB 1306 authored by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, otherwise known as the HOME Act, harmonizes state immigration policy with existing, broadly-supported criminal justice reforms, ensuring immigrant Californians who earn their release from state prison through these measures are not transferred to ICE. The legislation offers a simple fix to one form of CDCR’s discrimination against immigrants and refugees and takes important strides toward enacting equal treatment for all who call California home

San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2023. 22p.

By Global Detention Project

  Immigration detention is an important tool of immigration control in Taiwan (also “Taiwan Province of China”), where detainee numbers have steadily risen in recent years. Although conditions in Taiwan’s detention centres have frequently been criticised, they have received little international scrutiny because of China’s opposition to Taiwan’s UN membership. Taiwan also lacks an asylum system, though the need to establish asylum procedures has grown increasingly urgent as the numbers of Hong Kong residents seeking protection have grown.

Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2024. 30p.  

By Polly Mackenzie

The current asylum system is built on a culture of disbelief that inherently lacks compassion, is not competent and therefore does not control immigration in the way the government aspires to. We have, as a nation, lost confidence in it. Recent experiments in different systems responding to the geopolitical events in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong have started to develop new models we can all be more proud of. This paper argues that the Home Office should lose its responsibility for immigration, with a new arm’s-length body named Sanctuary UK set up to overhaul the system and create a new more humane system, learning from the best of the recent innovations.

London: Demos, 2022. 25p.

By Peter William Walsh and Mihnea Cuibus

This briefing examines the deportation, removal, and voluntary departure of people without the right to be in the UK. It presents statistics on the numbers and characteristics of people who are removed from the UK or who leave voluntarily.

Key Points Returns from the UK remained low compared to historical levels but returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2023 Enforced returns have declined sharply over the long run Voluntary returns increased significantly after the pandemic, following several years of decline Around 41% of those who submitted an asylum application between 2010 and 2020, and were refused, had been returned from the UK by June 2022 Around 1.3% of people who arrived by small boat from 2018 to June 2023 were returned from the UK during that period In the year ending 30 September 2023, the top nationalities among returnees were Albanian (20%), Indian (15%), and Brazilian (12%) In the year ending 30 September 2023, 16% of all people removed from the UK were foreign national offenders, and 53% of returned FNOs were EU citizens EU citizens made up a majority of people refused entry at the UK border after 2021 \

Oxford, UK: The Migration Observatory

COMPAS (Centre on Migration, Policy and Society)

University of Oxford2024. 15p.

Edited by  Nick Lowles

The far right poses its biggest political threat in Britain since World War Two. At the ballot box, on the streets and online, the far right – in all its guises – is increasingly confident, assertive and growing. With Donald Trump returning to the Presidency of the United States and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, financially and ideologically supporting the British far right, we can only assume that the threat will grow in 2025. REFORM UK Britain faces a genuine far-right political threat for the first time in our history, in the form of Reform UK: Reform UK received 4.2m votes in the 2024 general election, a 14.3% vote share Support for Reform UK has continued to grow since the election and now regularly tops opinion polls The party currently has 218,000 members and, with an influx of money and experienced political campaigners, is becoming an increasingly professional outfit RIOTS 2024 saw the worst race riots in 100 years, following the murder of three young girls in Southport by 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana: Violence broke out in 18 towns and cities across England While activists from known far-right organisations were involved in the trouble, most incidents emerged from localised, post-organisational far-right networks The riots were fuelled by disinformation and the widely reported claim across the entire far right that the authorities were covering up the Islamist motives of the attacker. Despite Axel Rudakubana not being a Muslim, much of the far right still refer to him as such HOPE not hate identified the man behind the Southport Wake Up Telegram group, which played a central role in stirring up the violence. He was recently imprisoned for seven years TOMMY ROBINSON Former EDL leader Stephen Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, continues to be the most influential far-right activist outside Reform: Lennon held a demonstration of 30,000 to 40,000 people in London in July, the largest far-right protest ever Lennon has acquired more than one million followers on X, and his tweets on the day of the big demonstration were seen by 58m people He was imprisoned for 18 months in late October for contempt of court He received support from Elon Musk, including funding RADICAL RIGHT ECOSYSTEM Fuelling the British far right is a growing, increasingly confident and well-resourced radical-right ecosystem, which spans traditional media, new media and a burgeoning number of individual actors: GB News is increasingly the mouthpiece for Reform UK A growing number of radical-right activists are leaving platforms like GB News to establish their own media outlets, backed by donations and subscriptions from supporters Academic-turned-activist Matt Goodwin is playing an increasingly important role in supporting Reform, backed by a Substack with more than 70,000 followers TERRORISM Far-right terrorism continues to pose a major threat in the UK: Twenty-three people who were far-right sympathisers were convicted under terrorist legislation A new violent cult called 764, closely linked to the nazi Satanist group Order of Nine Angles, is active in Britain A growing number of extremely violent young men are becoming increasing ideologically fluid, drawing inspiration from a diverse array of extremes in order to justify their thoughts and acts of violence. The Southport killer Axel Rudakubana is a case in point DEMOCRACY The public continue to be downbeat about the state of democracy and politics in the UK: 40% of Britons in a poll of 23,000 support a “strong and decisive leader who has the authority to override or ignore parliament” over a representative parliamentary democracy 68% do not believe that politicians listen to people like them, with just 9% believing they do The more pessimistic people are about their own lives, the more likely they are to support Reform UK, to believe multiculturalism is failing, and to oppose immigration    

London: Hope Not Hate, 2025. 140p.

By  Anne Marie Munene, Christine Harris, Deborah Rest, Etracy Rukwava, Goldie Joseph, Hadnet Tesfom Habtemariam and Kaffy Kazep.

  Over the past decade, Women for Refugee Women’s (WRW) groundbreaking research on women in immigration detention has shown that the majority of asylum-seeking women detained are survivors of rape and other forms of gender-based violence, including domestic violence, forced marriage and sexual exploitation. Locking up women who have already survived serious violence and abuse retraumatises them, causing profound and long lasting damage to their mental health. Since WRW started campaigning on this issue there have been important changes to women’s detention, including a huge reduction in the numbers detained: from over 300 women at any one time in 2014, to around 100 women now. Yet despite this progress, for women who continue to be locked up, the harms of detention remain. New research we have carried out has found that despite the Home Office banning practices through which male detention centre staff see women in intimate situations, these practices nonetheless continue. In mid-2016 the Home Executive Summary Office banned male staff from carrying out ‘constant supervision’ of women deemed at risk of suicide – yet in our survey of 40 women, 71% of respondents subject to ‘constant supervision’ since the ban came in told us they us had been watched by male staff. This means they will have been watched by men in situations including while in bed, on the toilet, in the shower or getting dressed. Survey respondents who told us they had been subject to constant supervision by male staff included women detained as recently as 2024. Since coming to power in July 2024 the Labour Government has made welcome commitments to prioritise survivors of gender-based violence and make sure they receive the support they need. We urge the Government to ensure that asylum seeking survivors are included in these commitments by taking the practical and achievable step of ending women’s immigration detention, and setting up a new   

London: Women for Refugee Women, 2025. 23p.

By Stephanie Leutert and Caitlyn Yates

In recent years, hundreds of thousands of migrants have sought asylum annually along the U.S.-Mexico border—either by arriving at ports of entry or by turning themselves in to Border Patrol agents. In response, U.S. authorities have enacted a range of policies, which have oscillated between channeling asylum seekers into specific legal pathways and either partially or fully blocking their access to the U.S. immigration system. During each shift, migrants have reacted in varying ways, such as by creating asylum waitlists or encampments along the border. In November 2018, the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin began publishing quarterly reports on asylum processing at ports of entry. As of January 20, 2025, there is no longer any asylum processing at the border. On this day, President Donald Trump assumed office for a second term and immediately halted all asylum processing—including both at and between ports of entry. This shift left hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers in limbo across Mexico, without any path to make an asylum claim in the United States. Simultaneously, the Mexican federal government has also increased its immigration enforcement at its borders and across the country’s interior. Specifically, it has expanded the number of migration-focused checkpoints on highways heading north, deployed more soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border, and bussed apprehended migrants to cities in southern Mexico. The Trump Administration’s elimination of foreign assistance has also hurt Mexican civil society organizations, with some migrant shelters struggling to provide food and other basic resources. This February 2025 asylum processing update focuses on current U.S. asylum policies at ports of entry and migrants’ experiences in Mexican border cities. It draws on phone and WhatsApp interviews with Mexican government officials and members of civil society organizations on both sides of the border from February 17, 2025 through February 24, 2025. It also relies on local news articles to fill in any gaps.

Austin, TX: The Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, 2025. 14p.

By  Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX)

Labour exploitation must be recognised as part of a continuum of experiences which range from decent work through to minor and major labour law violations, all the way to severe exploitation, including human trafficking. When workers are unable to access rights or to challenge poor employment conditions at those ‘earlier stages’ or ‘lower levels’ of exploitation, it paves the way for more severe exploitation including trafficking. 

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 focused on identifying trafficking which had already taken place. For those people who have been trafficked, this is too late. Ten years later, and with an Employment Rights Bill going through parliament, policy-makers should turn their attention to prevention, by addressing the conditions which have allowed trafficking for labour exploitation to thrive.

The Employment Rights Bill provides significant opportunity here. The Bill must be amended to ensure that all workers can access rights early, knowing that the authorities will focus on addressing their exploitation and delivering justice. 

London: FLEX, 2025. 5p.

By Susan Fratzke, Meghan Benton, Andrew Selee, Emma Dorst, Samuel Davidoff-Gore 

  The territorial asylum system at the heart of the global protection regime has proven itself to be a blunt tool with which to address the protection challenges of the 21st century. New crises, protracted displacement situations, and expanding norms about who merits protection have created a significant and growing population of individuals in need of international protection. In addition, growing mobility pressures due to demographic change, economic inequality, and climate change have found an outlet in asylum systems, providing an avenue of entry even for those who do not technically qualify for protection. Meanwhile, national governments have struggled to reconcile their international protection responsibilities with their domestic responsibilities to maintain security and order and to foster public trust. Asylum adjudication systems have become unwieldy and unable to keep pace with the demands placed on them, particularly when confronted with rapid changes or complex needs. These failures have had serious consequences. For individuals, the absence of large-scale alternatives to territorial asylum means that access to protection often depends on taking extreme risks or enduring hardships in order to reach the territory of a country where they can seek protection, journeys that may not be possible for the most vulnerable. For states, territorial asylum places governments in a largely reactive position, only responding to protection needs once their hand is forced by the arrival of people seeking protection on their territory. And at the global level, the lack of tools to facilitate the legal mobility of individuals in search of protection and of opportunities for displaced persons to move to a country other than their country of first asylum has concentrated protection responsibilities in a small number of countries, most of them low- or middle income. According to estimates by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) nearly 40 percent of the world’s refugees and individuals in refugee-like situations were hosted by just five countries as of mid-2023. To answer these challenges, there is an urgent need to shift the focus of protection responses away from an exclusive reliance on territorial asylum and toward a diversified set of policy tools. Territorial asylum will, and should, remain accessible as a safety valve, but states should seek to proactively facilitate access to protection as soon after and close to a displacement crisis as possible—and well before dangerous journeys become necessary. At the same time, policy approaches should recognize the agency of refugees and displaced persons—and the mobility pressures this can create—and provide legal avenues for individuals to move within and outside of their country of first asylum to join family and other connections through family reunification or sponsorship channels and to pursue education, work, or other opportunities. Aside from the benefits for displaced persons, such approaches would help transit and destination countries to reduce disorder at their borders and, by capitalizing on the resiliency and resourcefulness of displaced individuals in locating and securing solutions for themselves, to better allocate scarce resources to assist those who are most vulnerable. Policy approaches should also be responsive to the specificities of each crisis or situation. This may mean adopting expedited procedures or flexible forms of status in order to enable faster access to  status, prevent processing backlogs, or respond to legitimate needs that are not recognized in existing legal frameworks.    

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2024.  33p.

By Amnesty International

This briefing presents Amnesty International’s findings and observations from a week-long research trip to Tijuana, Mexico, in February 2025, whose purpose was to document the human rights impacts of changes to US migration and asylum policies since President Trump took office on 20 January 2025.1 In particular, it focuses on the end of applying for asylum at the US-Mexico border and the situation of asylum seekers in Mexico. This briefing does not provide detailed information about mass immigration arrests and detentions in the United States, nor an analysis of the discriminatory impacts of these measures. The cumulative effects and harms of the Trump administration’s punitive and discriminatory immigration and asylum measures are the subject of Amnesty International’s ongoing monitoring and analysis of the situation in the United States. During the trip to Tijuana, Amnesty International interviewed people seeking safety, met with legal, humanitarian and social service providers, local and international organizations, and visited shelters and spaces where migrants and asylum seekers are staying. The organization spoke with two Mexican men who had recently been deported from the United States to Mexico, as well as with 35 people seeking safety (almost half of whom were women) from Belarus, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Russia and Venezuela. Amnesty International interviewed local and international organizations operating in Tijuana including Al Otro Lado (AOL), Asylum Access México and Haitian Bridge Alliance. The organization also visited and spoke with those running migrant shelters, including Borderline Crisis Center, Casa de los Migrantes, Casa de los Pobres, El Rubi, Jardin de las Mariposas and Villa Haitiana. The interviews with Spanish-language speakers were conducted in Spanish, while interviews with non-Spanish speakers were conducted in English with interpretation assistance from staff of local organizations and other people seeking safety. Amnesty International requested meetings with the San Diego offices of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE declined the meeting request and CBP did not respond. The organization’s request to visit the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego was denied. Various individuals and organizations spoke to Amnesty International on the condition of anonymity. Their names have not been included in this report.  

London: Amnesty International, 2025. 24p.

By Vivi Paschalidou

The project titled “InteGRation: Tackling chronic challenges in the field of integration of refugees in Greece” was funded by the Oxford Policy Engagement Network (OPEN) at the University of Oxford and supported the partnership of the Border Criminologies research network with the Greek Council for Refugees. The present report is one of the outputs of the above project. In response to requests from refugee participants for information about state funded free legal aid in Greece, we created a new leaflet that provides practical information on the topic. It includes essential guidance on how to navigate the free legal aid system and a list of contact points for requesting aid at the courthouses in Athens and Thessaloniki. This leaflet has been distributed in the two major Greek cities’ Courts of Law in four languages: English, French, Arabic and Farsi. This builds on an ongoing collaboration between the two organisations. Together they have contributed to a number of key developments in the field of academic and policy inquiry into border control and immigration detention in Greece, including increasing public access to knowledge about immigration and creating a leaflet on access to rights in immigration detention. Greek Council for Refugees is a specialized Non-Governmental Organization that has been leading efforts to protect asylum and human rights in Greece since 1989. It provides free legal and social services to refugees and individuals from third countries who are entitled to international protection, with special emphasis on the most vulnerable cases, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking. Border Criminologies is an international research network and website based at the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford, which showcases original research from a range of perspectives, supports advocacy work and creates practical resources to help those working in the migration field. This report examines a specific aspect of the integration of applicants and recipients of international protection in Greece: The effectiveness of their access to the Greek justice system. We undertook thirty interviews with respondents from fourteen countries. Our questions focused on the refugees’ experience with the Greek justice system, the difficulties they faced and their recommendations for its amelioration. We also interviewed members of two key stakeholders, namely the judiciary and legal professionals handling asylum and migration law.

Athens: Greek Council for Refugees, 2024. 40p.

By Australian Human Rights Commission

In April and May 2024, the Commission visited the Broadmeadows Residential Precinct (BRP) and parts of the Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre (MIDC), the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC), and the Perth Immigration Detention Centre (PIDC), all facilities where women are held. This Report documents the key observations arising from the Commission’s inspection of these facilities. Some of the issues that the Commission identifies are specific to individual facilities and others are systemic in nature. The Report finds that in an overwhelmingly male system, women in immigration detention are often an afterthought when it comes to detention infrastructure, the provision of programs and activities, equitable access to services and the delivery of staff training. Women’s experiences of detention differ substantially from men’s, not only because they are minorities, but because they have particular needs and vulnerabilities that are often unrecognised and unmet. For many of the women, the negative impacts of detention are compounded by histories of abuse and trauma and heightened risk of exposure to violence and sexual harassment. The Report finds that these impacts are exacerbated by the continued use of operational quarantine (separation from the main population without medical symptoms) and the probable separation from family supports owing to the limited accommodation available for women close to their families and the inadequacy of visiting facilities for those with children. The Report finds that women have fewer opportunities for meaningful self-development, and the programs and activities offered are often unresponsive to their needs or not age appropriate. Staff working in these facilities often have no specific training on the vulnerabilities and needs of women in their care, which can result in routine activities being undertaken insensitively or exposing women to further trauma. The Report emphasises concern about women being routinely exposed to the possibility of harassment and violence because many of the services that are available to them are located in male compounds or adjacent to them. In particular, the Report highlights concern about the co-location of men and women in the Broadmeadows Residential Precinct and, the safety of women at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, who are housed next to a compound with registered sexual offenders. The recommendations made in this Report are designed to assist the Department to improve the situation for women in immigration detention, ensuring they are managed safely, while also protecting their human rights.

Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024. 93p.

By Katerina Glyniadaki, Nora Ratzmann, Julia Stier

International organizations and foreign-funded NGOs run campaigns in Senegal to raise awareness of the perils of irregular migration. To increase their effectiveness, these organizations often enlist local migrant returnees to share their personal migration experiences and transmit an anti-irregular migration message to their compatriots. This article examines whether policymakers' assumptions regarding the representativeness of migrant returnees operating as (anti-)migration messengers in terms of shared identities corresponds to reality at the street level. It draws from theories of street-level bureaucracy and representative bureaucracy and is based on 31 qualitative interviews with migrant returnees and experts. The study shows that migrant returnees engaged in migration information campaigns are not as representative of the local population as envisaged by policymakers, potentially impacting policy outcomes. They stand out from their compatriots in terms of skillsets and social status – partly because of the selection mechanism employed by organizations and partly because of the training and capacity-building efforts directed at migrant returnees.

International Migration. 2025;63:e13382.

By Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX)

2025 marks the 10 year anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act. Since that time the gaps in the UK’s systems to prevent, identify and address exploitation, including trafficking and modern slavery, have been well evidenced.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill misses a crucial opportunity to drive meaningful change to ensure that all victims of exploitation are protected, whatever their immigration status.

By failing to repeal key elements of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, this Bill does not address key drivers of exploitation. Instead, this Immigration Enforcement centred approach fails to provide meaningful opportunities for survivors to recover through security and decent work. This only plays into the hands of exploiters.

London: T (FLEX) , 2025. 6p

By European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

The following scenarios are based mainly on Serious Incidents Reports received by the Frontex' Fundamental Rights Office, concerning violations that allegedly took place at border areas where the Agency is operating. All cases refer to situations where third country nationals are under the jurisdiction of the authorities of the host state participating in a joint activity. In 2022-23, the Fundamental Rights Office launched approximately 100 Serious Incident Reports related to fundamental rights, matching the scenarios outlined below. This indicates that they represent potential violations of a widespread nature. Outlined scenarios, regardless of the direct or indirect involvement of Frontex staff and/or assets, may negatively impact the Agency and have potential legal implications, including for the broader European Border and Coast Guard community and respective national authorities. Active involvement by participants in joint activities in practices presented below, such as collective expulsions, amounts to a violation of EU and international law as well as a breach of the Frontex Code of Conduct. To ensure Frontex' full compliance with fundamental rights, it is necessary that the Agency makes clear to all operational participants that practices and policies as the ones described below are in violation of EU and international law and may result in Frontex' disengagement, triggering of Article 46 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation, or other forms of administrative, financial and operational consequences. Frontex' Fundamental Rights Office recognises that similar cases often form part of broader systemic issues, identified through its monitoring. The Office is mandated to provide recommendations to the Agency, relevant also for national authorities. The following scenarios are complementary to these efforts and aim to provide basic guidance for officers deployed at the borders as well as other staff tasked with related duties. Seven different scenarios of fundamental rights violations are briefly presented. While presented scenarios have been developed on the basis of most frequently alleged violations, it is important to note that this is a non-exhaustive list. While this document includes basic references to violated rights, it is not intended to be a legal analysis. Outside of the official border crossing point. based on real-life Serious Incident Reports (SIR) Category 1, and includes a list of potentially violated rights. The last section of the document outlines "dos" and "don'ts" for border guards in case of witnessing or learning about similar cases in the performance of their duties.

Warsaw • Poland : European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), 2024 . 16p