Abstract
This chapter explores if judges’ final decisions in granting humanitarian protection actually consider asylum seeker’s level of integration into the society of residence. More precisely, analyses focus on the appeal stage and, therefore, consider asylum applications rejected at first instance by Territorial Commissions and reexamined by Italian Civil Courts. Adopting a mixed-method approach, the chapter aims to understand if, and to what extent, asylum seekers’ level of integration is a potential determinant in favouring judges to grant humanitarian protection at the appeal stage. Findings reveal that, by and large, factors of integration are deeply considered by Italian judges in the decision to grant humanitarian protection, but employment status and language proficiency seem to be more important than other factors.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Dublin Regulation, which indicates the state responsible for examining the application and clarifies the rules governing the relations between states; and the EURODAC Regulation, which assists the Member State responsible under the Dublin Regulation in establishing an EU database of fingerprints of asylum applicants.
- 2.
To give an idea of the relevance of the appeal phase, it is sufficient to recall that, in 2021, around 65,100 asylum seekers in the EU received positive final decisions based on an appeal or review.
- 3.
86 asylum seekers waiting for the appeal sentence were excluded from the analysis since they did not show up at the hearing.
- 4.
Predictive margins were estimated with all other covariates fixed at their means.
- 5.
In the other 26 hearings, the lawyer was present without the asylum seeker. In those occasions, when lawyers declared they were not able to contact the asylum seeker, the judge usually decided to conclude the appeal procedure and decide on the case (mostly negatively). If the asylum seeker’s absence was due to personal reasons (work, health problems, etc.), the judge postponed the hearing.
- 6.
One judge did not consent to participate in the research.
- 7.
A careful reading of the data shows the existence of some inconsistencies between, on the one hand, age at arrival in Italy and age at the appeal stage and, on the other hand, days passed between the first arrival and the final decision. For example, according to age, Pakistanis get the final decision after 5 years from their arrival in Italy, whereas if one considers days between arrival and final decision, they have to wait “only” 4 years and 3 months. These discrepancies are due to missing data variability across variables.
- 8.
Models were run considering one variable at a time due to multicollinearity.
- 9.
Predictive margins were estimated with all other covariates fixed at their means.
References
Acierno, M. (2018). La protezione umanitaria nel sistema dei diritti umani. Questione Giustizia, 2, 99–107.
Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2004). Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191.
Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Indicators of Integration: Final Report. Home Office Development and Practice Report, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Andersson, R. (2014). Time and the Migrant Other: European Border Controls and the Temporal Economics of Illegality. American Anthropologist, 116(4), 795–809.
Asylum National Commission (2015). Circolare prot. 00003716 del 30.7.2015. Available online at: https://briguglio.asgi.it/immigrazione-e-asilo/2016/febbraio/circ-comm-naz-asilo-30-7-2015.pdf
Atfield, G., Brahmbhatt, K., & O’Toole, T. (2007). Refugees’ Experiences of Integration. Refugee Council and University of Birmingham.
Bergeron, J., & Potter, S. (2006). Family Members and Relatives: An Important Resource for Newcomers’ Settlement? Canadian Issues: 76–80.
Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2017). Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World. Oxford University Press.
Biondi dal Monte, F. (2020). I richiedenti asilo e i diritti dell’integrazione. Diritto Costituzionale, 2, 113–140.
Bissell, D. (2007). Animating Suspension: Waiting for Mobilities. Mobilities, 2(2), 277–298.
Brodkin, E. Z. (2021). Street-Level Organizations at the Front Lines of Crises. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(1), 16–29.
Brumat, L., Geddes, A., & Pettrachin, A. (2021). Making Sense of the Global: A Systematic Review of Globalising and Localising Dynamics in Refugee Governance. Journal of Refugee Studies, 35(2), 827–848.
Burnett, A., & Peel, M. (2001). Health Needs of Asylum Seekers and Refugees. British Medical Journal, 322(7285), 544–547.
Campesi, G. (2018). Seeking Asylum in Times of Crisis: Reception, Confinement, and Detention at Europe’s Southern Border. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 37(1), 44–70.
Campomori, F., & Ambrosini, M. (2020). Multilevel Governance in Trouble: The Implementation of Asylum Seekers’ Reception in Italy as a Battleground. Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), 1–19.
Cheung, S. Y., & Phillimore, J. (2013). Social Networks, Social Capital and Refugee Integration. Sociology, 48(3), 518–536.
Chiaromonte, W., & Federico, V. (2021). The Labour Market Needs Them, But We Don’t Want Them to Stay for Good: The Conundrum of Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ Integration in Italy. In V. Federico & S. Baglioni (Eds.), Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ Integration in European Labour Markets: A Comparative Approach on Legal Barriers and Enablers (pp. 193–212). Springer.
Chiswick, B. R. (1991). Speaking, Reading, and Earnings Among Low-Skilled Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics, 9, 149–170.
Czarniawska, B. (2007). Shadowing: And Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in Modern Societies. Copenhagen Business School Press.
Dallara, C., & Lacchei, A. (2021). Street-Level Bureaucrats and Coping Mechanisms. The Unexpected Role of Italian Judges in Asylum Policy Implementation. South European Society and Politics, 26(1), 83–108.
Dallara, C., Lacchei, A., & Verzelloni, L. (2022). Up-Scaling Innovation in Asylum Adjudication: The Case of the Migrantes Project in Sicily. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1–20.
Dustmann, C. (1994). Speaking Fluency, Writing Fluency and Earnings of Migrants. Journal of Population Economics, 7, 133–156.
Dustmann, C., & van Soest, A. (2002). Language and the Earnings of Immigrants. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(3), 473–492.
Ecker, A., Ennser-Jedenastik, L., & Haselmayer, M. (2020). Gender Bias in Asylum Adjudications: Evidence for Leniency Toward Token Women. Sex Roles, 82(1), 117–126.
Entzinger, H. (2000). The Dynamics of Integration Policies: A Multidimensional Model. In R. Koopmans & P. Statham (Eds.), Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics: Comparative European Perspectives (pp. 97–118). Oxford University Press.
Federico, V., & Baglioni, F. (2021). Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ Integration in European Labour Markets: A Comparative Approach on Legal Barriers and Enablers. Springer.
Federico, V., & Pannia, P. (2019). Migrants’ Legal Statuses in Contemporary Italy: First attempts of Conceptualization. Percorsi costituzionali, 1(18), 17–36.
Feinstein, S., Poleacovschi, C., Drake, R., & Winters, L. A. (2022). States and Refugee Integration: A Comparative Analysis of France, Germany, and Switzerland. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 23(3), 2167–2194.
Geddes, A. (2021). Governing Migration beyond the State: Europe, North America, South America and Southeast Asia in a Global Context. Oxford University Press.
Gill, N., & Good, A. (2019). Asylum Determination in Europe. Springer.
Gill, N., Hoellerer, N., Allsopp, J., Burridge, A., Fisher, D., Griffiths, M., & Vianelli, L. (2022). Rethinking Commonality in Refugee Status Determination in Europe: Legal Geographies of Asylum Appeals. Political Geography, 98, 102686.
Grzymala-Kazlowska, A., & Phillimore, J. (2018). Introduction: Rethinking Integration: New Perspectives on Adaptation and Settlement in the Era of Super-Diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(2), 179–196.
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Lawrence, D. (2016). When Lives Are Put on Hold: Lengthy Asylum Processes Decrease Employment among Refugees. Science Advances, 2(8), e1600432.
Hamlin, R. (2014). Let Me Be a Refugee: Administrative Justice and the Politics of Asylum in the United States. Oxford University Press.
Heckmann, F., & Schnapper, D. (2003). The Integration of Immigrants in European Societies: National Differences and Trends of Convergence. Lucies & Lucius.
Jaeger, G. (2001). On the History of the International Protection of Refugees. International Review of the Red Cross, 83(843), 727–738.
Jann, B. (2014). Plotting Regression Coefficients and Other Estimates. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 4, 708–737.
Khosravi, S. (2014). Waiting. In B. Anderson & M. Keith (Eds.), Migration: A COMPAS Anthology (pp. 66–77). COMPAS.
Kosyakova, Y., & Brenzel, H. (2020). The Role of Length of Asylum Procedure and Legal Status in the Labour Market Integration of Refugees in Germany. SozW Soziale Welt, 71(1–2), 123–159.
Kristjansdottir, E., & Dis Skaptadottir, U. (2018). “I’ll Always Be a Refugee.” The Lived Experiences of Palestinian Refugee Women of Moving to a Small Society in Iceland. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 17(3), 389–404.
Lauterpacht, E., & Bethlehem, D. (2003). The Scope and the Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion. In E. Feller, V. Türk, & F. Nicholson (Eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (pp. 87–177). Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, B. N., & Ruffer, G. B. (2015). Adjudicating Refugee and Asylum Status: The Role of Witness, Expertise, and Testimony. Cambridge University Press.
Mendola, D., & Busetta, A. (2018). Health and Living Conditions of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers: A Survey of Informal Settlements in Italy. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 37(4), 477–505.
Ministry of the Interior (2020). Quaderno statistico dal 1990 al 2020. Available online at: http://www.libertaciviliimmigrazione.dlci.interno.gov.it/sites/default/files/allegati/quaderno_statistico_per_gli_anni_1990_2020.pdf
Mood, C. (2010). Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.
Neumayer, E. (2005). Bogus Refugees? The Determinants of Asylum Migration to Western Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 49(3), 389–409.
Noll, G. (2005). Proof, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.
Petrovic, N. (2020). Storia del diritto di asilo in Italia, 1945–2020: le istituzioni, la legislazione, gli aspetti socio-politici. FrancoAngeli.
Phillimore, J. (2021). Refugee-Integration-Opportunity Structures: Shifting the Focus from Refugees to Context. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(2), 1946–1966.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster.
Rotter, R. (2016). Waiting in the Asylum Determination Process: Just an Empty Interlude? Time and Society, 25(1), 80–101.
Ruokolainen, H., & Widén, G. (2020). Conceptualising Misinformation in the Context of Asylum Seekers. Information Processing & Management, 57(3), 1–14.
Salvo, T., & de Williams, A. C. (2017). “If I Speak English, What Am I? I Am Full Man, Me”: Emotional Impact and Barriers for Refugees and Asylum Seekers Learning English. Transcultural Psychiatry, 54(5–6), 733–755.
Schenner, J. K., Cavanna, P., & Ollus, N. (2019). Asylum-Seekers and the “Hyper-Precarity Trap” in Austria, Finland and Italy. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 25(1), 81–99.
Spencer, S. (2011). The Migration Debate. The Policy Press.
Spencer, S., & Charsley, K. (2016). Conceptualising Integration: A Framework for Empirical Research, Taking Marriage Migration as A Case Study. Comparative Migration Studies, 4(18), 1–19.
UNHCR. (2001). Chapter 2.6: Fostering Independent Communication: Language Training Programs for Adult Resettled Refugees. In UNHCR (Eds.), Refugee Resettlement: An International Handbook to Guide Reception and Integration (pp. 121–140). UNCHR.
UNHCR Executive Committee. (1977). Addendum to the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. General Assembly, Official Records: Thirty-Second Session, Supplement No.12A (A/32/12/Add.1). New York: United Nations.
Vianelli, L., Gill, N., & Hoellerer, N. (2022). Waiting as Probation: Selecting Self-Disciplining Asylum Seekers. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(5), 1013–1032.
Williams, R. (2012). Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects. The Stata Journal, 12(2), 308–331.
Wren, K. (2007). Supporting Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Glasgow: The Role of Multi-Agency Networks. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(3), 391–413.
Zorzella, N. (2021). La nuova protezione speciale introdotta dal d.l. 130/2020. Tra principio di flessibilità, resistenze amministrative e problematiche applicative. Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza, 2, 129–154.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lacchei, A., Dallara, C., Mantovani, D. (2023). The Role of Local Socio-Economic Integration in Italian Asylum Adjudications. In: Fauri, F., Mantovani , D. (eds) Past and Present Migration Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39431-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39431-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39430-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39431-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)