Difficult decisions: A review of UNHCR's engagement with Assisted Voluntary Return programmes

During the past two decades, there has been growing concern amongst states with respect to the fact that many asylum seekers whose claim to refugee status has been rejected remain in an irregular basis in the country where they have sought asylum.

Governments have generally concluded that the systematic detention and deportation of such individuals is an expensive, unworkable and unpalatable response to this problem, and have consequently invested a considerable amount of time, effort and money in the formulation of Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programmes, which enable rejected asylum seekers, other non-nationals and asylum seekers with pending asylum claims to return to their country of origin without the use of physical coercion and with resources to support their reintegration. This review examines the role of UNHCR in such programmes.

Following a brief introduction to the origins, purposes and methodology of the review, this report examines the context in which AVR programmes have emerged, focusing on the reasons why many rejected asylum seekers refuse to comply with official orders to leave the country where they have submitted an unsuccessful claim for refugee status.

The report also examines the rationale for AVR programmes from the perspective of states, explains why some NGOs have abandoned their previous opposition to such programmes and identifies the benefits which they bring to the rejected asylum seekers and others who participate in them.

The following chapters of the review focus more specifically on UNHCR’s role in relation to AVR programmes, examining first the policy positions that the organization has adopted in relation to the return of rejected asylum seekers, and second its operational involvement in such programmes in different parts of the world.

On the basis of this analysis, the report ends with some conclusions and recommendations in relation to UNHCR’s role in AVR programmes. The review calls on UNHCR to adopt a differentiated approach to this issue. In countries which have functional asylum systems and where the International Organization for Migration and/or NGOs are already responsible for AVR programmes, the review envisages a minor role for UNHCR, limited to counselling and the provision of relevant information to asylum seekers.

A more active monitoring role is envisaged for UNHCR in countries with weak and lengthy asylum procedures, so as to ensure that asylum seekers with a strong claim to refugee status are not induced to participate in an AVR programme because they are in detention, destitute or because their claim has been wrongly rejected. In this respect, the review recommends that UNHCR gives particular attention to AVR applicants coming from countries with a high global recognition rate.

The review suggests that UNHCR could play a particularly useful role in finding solutions for rejected asylum seekers (including but not limited to assisted voluntary return) in countries where it is responsible for conducting refugee status determination. While a more thorough engagement in this issue would undoubtedly require additional capacity on the part of UNHCR, the report points out that this would also strengthen the organization’s credibility vis-à-vis states and support the organization’s efforts to expand the protection space available to recognized refugees.

The review found that rejected asylum seekers may struggle to reintegrate in their country of origin if they are not adequately assisted. At the same time, the report suggests that it would be inequitable for rejected asylum seekers to be supported more generously than refugees who are repatriating on a voluntary basis to the same country.
The review concludes that UNHCR lacks the capacity and expertise to monitor the social and economic reintegration of AVR participants in countries of origin, and that the organization should not seek to expand its activities in this domain.

While UNHCR policy on the return of rejected asylum seekers is well established, specific guidance is lacking with respect to the organization’s role with asylum seekers who remain in the Refugee Status Determination procedure and who wish to participate in AVR programmes. This gap could now be usefully filled through information sharing, counseling and referrals at any stage of the procedure.

Finally, recognizing the complementarity of UNHCR and IOM’s interest in effective and equitable AVR programmes, as well as the leading role that the latter organization plays in this domain, it is recommended that a joint working group be established to foster further cooperation on this matter and to review the findings and recommendations of the current review.