Immigration Asylum Evaluations Are Changing: When asylum isn’t about trauma anymore
For many clinicians, immigration asylum evaluations have long followed a familiar framework. We assess the psychological impact of past persecution, document trauma symptoms, and help the court understand why returning to a person’s country of origin would place them at risk.
But increasingly, that framework no longer fits the referrals landing on our desks.
Across the country, clinicians are being asked to conduct immigration asylum evaluations for individuals who did not flee persecution, may have no history of trauma, and did not arrive in the United States seeking asylum. Yet these individuals now fear being forcibly removed from the United States due to their serious psychological, cognitive, or developmental vulnerabilities.
This shift requires us to think differently about what we are evaluating, why it matters, and how to stay ethically grounded as the work evolves.
A Subtle but Significant Shift in Asylum Evaluations
In traditional asylum cases, the central clinical question has often been rooted in trauma. What happened before the individual fled. How those experiences affected their mental health. How symptoms relate to fear of return.
What we are seeing more often now is a different kind of case.
These individuals may have been brought to the United States as children or migrated for reasons unrelated to persecution. They may have lived here for many years. Some have serious mental illness, neurodevelopmental conditions, cognitive impairments, or a combination of vulnerabilities that significantly affect daily functioning.
The legal question shifts accordingly. Instead of focusing on past harm, attorneys are asking whether a person could realistically survive, remain safe, and function independently if removed to a country that is effectively unfamiliar to them.
For clinicians, this marks an important change in how immigration asylum evaluations are framed.
From Trauma History to Functional Capacity
In these newer referrals, the focus is less on fear of past persecution and more on current functioning and vulnerability.
Attorneys may ask questions such as:
Does this person have the cognitive capacity to care for themselves independently
Can they recognize danger or protect themselves from exploitation
Are they able to seek out medical or psychiatric care if needed
How dependent are they on caregivers, family members, or structured systems of support
What happens to their safety when those supports are removed
These are not questions about trauma exposure. They are questions about functional capacity and risk.
As clinicians, our role is not to speculate about country conditions or legal outcomes. Our role is to document what we observe clinically: mental status, cognitive functioning, judgment, insight, adaptive skills, and the degree of support required for the person to remain safe.
Vulnerability-Based Asylum Claims and Ethical Boundaries
One of the challenges in these cases is maintaining clear professional boundaries.
It can be tempting to explain what might happen to an individual if they were removed. But that is not our role. Attorneys rely on country conditions experts and legal arguments to address systemic risks abroad.
Our contribution in immigration asylum evaluations is different. We provide an objective clinical window into how the person functions, what limitations exist, and what vulnerabilities increase their risk in unsupported - and oftentimes dangerous - environments.
This distinction is critical. Staying within our expert role protects our credibility, our license, and the integrity of the evaluation itself.
Why These Cases Often Overlap With Competency Concerns
Another important trend is the overlap between vulnerability-based asylum evaluations and competency to proceed concerns in immigration court.
If a person cannot understand their surroundings, process information, recognize danger, or make basic decisions independently, it is reasonable to question whether they can meaningfully participate in their legal proceedings.
In many cases, the same impairments that raise concerns about survivability if removed also raise questions about competency in court. This makes careful, structured assessment even more important.
Understanding this overlap allows clinicians to approach these evaluations with greater clarity and confidence.
A Different Mindset, Not a Lesser One
It is important to be clear: these are not “lesser” asylum cases. They are not simply trauma evaluations without trauma.
They are deeply human, complex assessments that require careful clinical reasoning, ethical restraint, and a solid understanding of what the court is actually asking us to evaluate.
As immigration asylum evaluations continue to evolve, clinicians who stay curious, reflective, and grounded in their expertise will be best positioned to serve both their clients and the legal process responsibly.
Learn More on the Beyond Borders Podcast
In the latest episode of the podcast, I walk through this shift in more detail, using real clinical examples to explain:
How asylum evaluations are changing
What attorneys are asking clinicians to assess
How to think about functioning, safety, and capacity
Where ethical boundaries matter most
Why these referrals are becoming more common
🔊 Listen to the episode here:
This episode is made possible by the Expert Training in Immigration Evaluations.
If you want a clear, structured, and sustainable approach to writing immigration evaluations, this training was created for you. Over 12 weeks, you will learn how to conduct trauma-aware interviews, write court-relevant reports, and avoid the common pitfalls that can unintentionally weaken a case.
