Downloads

https://doi.org/10.62836/jitp.2025.495
Judijanto, L. (2025). Asylum Processing Algorithms and Epistemic Violence: A Review of AI’s Role in Refugee Status Determination. Journal of Information, Technology and Policy, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.62836/jitp.2025.495
Volume 3, Issue 1, 2025
Copyright (c) 2025 Loso Judijanto
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Asylum Processing Algorithms and Epistemic Violence: A Review of AI’s Role in Refugee Status Determination

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in asylum processing systems has raised significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding its impact on refugee status determination (RSD). AI technologies, such as machine learning and biometric recognition, are increasingly being employed to streamline asylum decision-making. However, there is a growing concern about the biases embedded in these systems and the potential for epistemic violence—the erasure of refugee voices in the decision-making process. This study aims to explore the role of AI algorithms in asylum processing, focusing on how they contribute to epistemic violence in refugee status determination. This research employs a qualitative literature review methodology, analysing a range of academic articles, reports, and case studies published over the past decade. The primary data collection method involves reviewing secondary data from peer-reviewed articles, government reports, and international organisations that focus on AI and asylum processing. Data analysis follows a thematic approach, identifying key trends, challenges, and ethical implications related to the implementation of AI in RSD processes. The results of this review reveal that AI systems often perpetuate biases based on race, gender, and nationality, leading to unfair outcomes for refugees. Additionally, AI’s inability to fully capture the complexity of refugee experiences contributes to epistemic violence, where the unique and personal stories of refugees are reduced to data points. In conclusion, AI has the potential to improve asylum processes but must be applied with caution. Future research should focus on the development of ethical AI frameworks and explore alternative approaches to ensure more inclusive and fair refugee status determination processes.

asylum processing artificial intelligence epistemic violence refugee status determination algorithmic bias

References

  1. Gemenne F, Zickgraf C, Hut E, et al. Forced Displacement Related to the Impacts of Climate Change and Disasters; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2022.
  2. Vohra A. Social Order in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: The Use of Technology in Migration Governance and Decision-Making. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2023.
  3. Georgiou M. City of Refuge or Digital Order? Refugee Recognition and the Digital Governmentality of Migration in the City. Television & New Media 2019; 20: 600–616.
  4. Al-Hadari O. The AI-sylum Process: Ethical Implications of AI-Implementation in German Asylum Procedures. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2025.
  5. Ajana B. Asylum, Identity Management and Biometric Control. Journal of Refugee Studies 2013; 26: 576–595.
  6. Westerling FA. Technology-Related Risks to the Right to Asylum: Epistemic Vulnerability Production in Automated Credibility Assessment. European Journal of Law and Technology 2022; 13.
  7. Laupman C, Schippers LM, Papaléo Gagliardi M. Biased Algorithms and the Discrimination upon Immigration Policy. In Law and Artificial Intelligence: Regulating AI and Applying AI in Legal Practice; TMC Asser Press: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 187–204.
  8. Davies T, Isakjee A, Obradovic-Wochnik J. Epistemic Borderwork: Violent Pushbacks, Refugees, and the Politics of Knowledge at the EU Border. American Association of Geographers 2023; 113: 169–188.
  9. Brunner C. Conceptualizing Epistemic Violence: An Interdisciplinary Assemblage for IR. International Politics Reviews 2021; 9: 193–212.
  10. McNamara RG, Tikka P. Well-Founded Fear of Algorithms or Algorithms of Well-Founded Fear? Hybrid Intelligence in Automated Asylum Seeker Interviews. Journal of Refugee Studies 2023; 36: 238–270.
  11. McCarroll E. Weapons of Mass Deportation: Big Data and Automated Decision-Making Systems in Immigration Law. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 2019; 34: 705.
  12. Akhmetova R, Harris E. Politics of Technology: The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Us and Canadian Immigration Agencies and Their Impacts on Human Rights. In Digital Identity, Virtual Borders and Social Media; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021; pp. 52–72.
  13. Koulu R. Proceduralizing Control and Discretion: Human Oversight in Artificial Intelligence Policy. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2020; 27: 720–735.
  14. Eubanks V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
  15. Beduschi A. International Migration Management in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Migration Studies 2021; 9: 576–596.
  16. Ozkul D. Automating Immigration and Asylum: The Uses of New Technologies in Migration and Asylum Governance in Europe; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2023.
  17. Kasirzadeh A. Algorithmic Fairness and Structural Injustice: Insights from Feminist Political Philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Oxford, UK, 19–21 May 2021; pp. 349–356.
  18. Miragoli M. Conformism, Ignorance & Injustice: AI as a Tool of Epistemic Oppression. Episteme 2025; 22(2): 522–540.
  19. Martin K, Waldman A. Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 2023; 183: 653–670.
  20. Scheel S. Epistemic Domination by Data Extraction: Questioning the Use of Biometrics and Mobile Phone Data Analysis in Asylum Procedures. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2024; 50: 2289–2308.
  21. Sharmin S. Refugee Resettlement & AI-Powered Resource Allocation: Optimizing Social Services for Displaced Populations. Journal of Public Administration Research 2025; 2: 13–36.
  22. Bor S, Koech NC. Balancing Human Rights and the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Border Security in Africa. Journal of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law 2023; 3: 77.
  23. Jensen K. The Epistemic Logic of Asylum Screening: (dis) Embodiment and the Production of Asylum Knowledge in Brazil. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2018; 41: 2615–2633.
  24. Green B, Chen Y. Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2021; 5: 1–33.
  25. Grimmelikhuijsen S. Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision-Making. Public Administration Review 2023; 83: 241–262.
  26. Noble SM, Foster LL, Craig SB. The Procedural and Interpersonal Justice of Automated Application and Resume Screening. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2021; 29: 139–153.
  27. Haas BM. Suspended Lives: Navigating Everyday Violence in the US Asylum System; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2023; Volume 4.
  28. Crawley H. Saving Brown Women from Brown Men? ‘Refugee Women’, Gender and the Racialised Politics of Protection. Refugee Survey Quarterly 2022; 41: 355–380.
  29. Câmara A, Taneja N, Azad T, et al. Mapping the Multilingual Margins: Intersectional Biases of Sentiment Analysis Systems in English, Spanish, and Arabic. arXiv 2022; arXiv2204.03558.
  30. Milano S, Prunkl C. Algorithmic Profiling as a Source of Hermeneutical Injustice. Philosophical Studies 2025; 182: 185–203.
  31. Slavich GM, Taylor S, Picard RW. Stress Measurement Using Speech: Recent Advancements, Validation Issues, and Ethical and Privacy Considerations. Stress 2019; 22: 408–413.
  32. Tazzioli M. Governing Refugees through Disorientation: Fragmented Knowledges and Forced Technological Mediations. Review of International Studies 2022; 48: 425–440.
  33. Levy K, Chasalow, KE, Riley S. Algorithms and Decision-Making in the Public Sector. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2021; 17: 309–334.
  34. Saxena D, Badillo-Urquiola K, Wisniewski PJ, et al. A framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2021; 5: 1–41.
  35. Lloyd K. Bias Amplification in Artificial Intelligence Systems. arXiv 2018; arXiv1809.07842.
  36. Maas J. Machine Learning and Power Relations. AI Society 2023; 38: 1493–1500.
  37. LHall LB, Clapton W. Programming the Machine: Gender, Race, Sexuality, AI, and the Construction of Credibility and Deceit at the Border. Internet Policy Review 2021; 10: 1–23.
  38. Aler Tubella A, Theodorou A, Dignum V, et al. Contestable Black Boxes. In Proceedings of the Rules and Reasoning: 4th International Joint Conference, RuleML+ RR 2020, Oslo, Norway, 29 June–1 July 2020; pp. 159–167.
  39. Coppi G, Moreno Jimenez R, Kyriazi S. Explicability of Humanitarian AI: A Matter of Principles. Journal of International Humanitarian Action 2021; 6: 19.
  40. Mollema WJT. Decolonial AI as Disenclosure. arXiv 2024; arXiv2407.13050.
  41. Memon A, Given-Wilson Z, Ozkul D, et al. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Asylum System. Medicine, Science and the Law 2024; 64: 87–90.
  42. Kinchin N. The Human in the Feedback Loop: Predictive Analytics in Refugee Status Determination. Law, Technology Humans 2024; 6: 23–45.
  43. Andersen TS. Data Discrimination & Algorithmic Bias at the ‘Digital Fortress Europe’: An in-Depth Human Rights Analysis of Racialization and Gendering of Asylum Seekers from the Global South in the Large-Scale EU-Biometric Database Eurodac; Panteion University: Athens, Greece, 2023.
  44. Arvidsson M, Noll G. Decision Making in Asylum Law and Machine Learning: Autoethnographic Lessons Learned on Data Wrangling and Human Discretion. Nordic Journal of International Law 2023; 92: 56–92.
  45. Ortensi LE, Piccitto G, Morlotti S. A Female Advantage in Asylum Application Decisions? A Gendered Analysis of Decisions on Asylum Applications in Italy from 2008 to 2022. Genus 2024; 80: 13.
  46. Abbas P, von Werthern M, Katona C, et al. The Texture of Narrative Dilemmas: Qualitative Study in Front-Line Professionals Working with Asylum Seekers in the UK. BJPsych Bulletin 2021; 45: 8–14.
  47. Späth E. AI Use in the Asylum Procedure in Germany: Exploring Perspectives with Refugees and Supporters on Assessment Criteria and Beyond. In Participatory Artificial Intelligence in Public Social Services: From Bias to Fairness in Assessing Beneficiaries; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 119–146.
  48. Jasmontaite-Zaniewicz L, Zomignani Barboza J. Disproportionate Surveillance: Technology-Assisted and Automated Decisions in Asylum Applications in the EU? International Journal of Refugee Law 2021; 33: 89–110.
  49. Ahmad N. Refugees and Algorithmic Humanitarianism: Applying Artificial Intelligence to RSD Procedures and Immigration Decisions and Making Global Human Rights Obligations Relevant to AI Governance. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 2020; 28(3): 367–435.
  50. Forster M, House C. Refugee Protection in the Artificial Intelligence Era; Chatham House: London, UK, 2022.
  51. Raman V, Vera C, Manna CJ. Bias, Consistency, and Partisanship in US Asylum Cases: A Machine Learning Analysis of Extraneous Factors in Immigration Court Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, Arlington, VA, USA, 6–9 October 2022.
  52. Andrus M, Villeneuve S. Demographic-Reliant Algorithmic Fairness: Characterizing the Risks of Demographic Data Collection in the Pursuit of Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 21–24 June 2022; pp. 1709–1721.
  53. Valdivia A, Serrajòrdia JC, Swianiewicz A. There Is an Elephant in the Room: Towards a Critique on the Use of Fairness in Biometrics. AI Ethics 2023; 3: 1407–1422.
  54. Kirat T, Tambou O, Do V, et al. Fairness and Explainability in Automatic Decision-Making Systems. A Challenge for Computer Science and Law. EURO Journal on Decision Processes 2023; 11: 100036.
  55. Benslama-Dabdoub M. Epistemic Violence and Colonial Legacies in the Representation of Refugee Women: Contesting Narratives of Vulnerability and Victimhood. International Journal of Law in Context 2024; 20: 54–73.
  56. Barbosa LVF, de Moraes ALZ. Exploring the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Refugee Status Determination: A Human Rights Approach. In Artificial Intelligence and International Human Rights Law; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2024; pp. 294–308.
  57. Nalbandian L. An Eye for an ‘I:’a Critical Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Migration and Asylum Management. Comparative Migration Studies 2022; 10: 32.
  58. Guill’en A, Teodoro E. Embedding Ethical Principles into AI Predictive Tools for Migration Management in Humanitarian Action. Social Sciences 2023; 12: 53.
  59. Vaassen B. AI, Opacity, and Personal Autonomy. Philosophy & Technology 2022; 35: 88.
  60. Khan AA, Akbar MA, Fahmideh M, et al. AI Ethics: An Empirical Study on the Views of Practitioners and Lawmakers. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 2023; 10: 2971–2984.
  61. Yang Y, Borgesius FZ, Beckers P, et al. Automated Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence at European Borders and Their Risks for Human Rights. arXiv 2024; arXiv2410.17278.
  62. Carammia M, Iacus SM, Wilkin T. Forecasting Asylum-Related Migration Flows with Machine Learning and Data at Scale. Scientific Reports 2022; 12: 1457.
  63. Orwat C. Algorithmic Discrimination from the Perspective of Human Dignity. Social Inclusion 2024; 12.
  64. Molnar P. Robots and Refugees: The Human Rights Impacts of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making in Migration. In Research Handbook on International Migration and Digital Technology; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021; pp. 134–151.
  65. Ediae AA, Chikwe CF, Kuteesa KN. Leveraging AI in Case Management for Vulnerable Migrants: A Path toward Enhanced Resilience. Computer Science & IT Research Journal 2024; 5: 985–1007.
  66. Forti M. Addressing Algorithmic Errors in Data-Driven Border Control Procedures. German Law Journal 2024; 25: 635–645.
  67. Ludt C, Bjørnholt M, Niklasson B. Speaking the Unspeakable: Disclosures of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Asylum Credibility Assessments. Nordic Journal of Human Rights 2022; 40: 441–460.
  68. Ecker A, Ennser-Jedenastik L, Haselmayer M. Gender Bias in Asylum Adjudications: Evidence for Leniency toward Token Women. Sex Roles 2020; 82: 117–126.
  69. Prabhakaran V, Qadri R, Hutchinson B. Cultural Incongruencies in Artificial Intelligence. arXiv 2022; arXiv2211.13069.
  70. PHelm P, Bella G, Koch G, et al. Diversity and Language Technology: How Techno-Linguistic Bias Can Cause Epistemic Injustice. arXiv 2023; arXiv2307.13714.
  71. Kenny MA, Procter N, Grech C. Mental Deterioration of Refugees and Asylum Seekers with Uncertain Legal Status in Australia: Perceptions and Responses of Legal Representatives. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 2023; 69: 1277–1284.
  72. Paskey S. Telling Refugee Stories: Trauma, Credibility, and the Adversarial Adjudication of Claims for Asylum. Santa Clara Law Review 2016; 56: 457.
  73. Pozzi G, De Proost M. Keeping an AI on the Mental Health of Vulnerable Populations: Reflections on the Potential for Participatory Injustice. AI Ethics 2025; 5(3): 2281–229.
  74. Ineli Ciger M. Artificial Intelligence and Resettlement of Refugees: Implications for the Fundamental Rights; European University Institute: Fiesole, Italy, 2023.
  75. Barale C. Refugee Status Determination: How Cooperation with Machine Learning Tools Can Lead to More Justice. arXiv 2023; arXiv2308.11541.
  76. Bringas Colmenarejo A. Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analytics in Decision Making: The Migration and Asylum Systems. Master’s Thesis, Charles University, Prague, Czechia, 2020.
  77. Stewart LS. Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures and Artificial Intelligence: Quo Vadis Due Process? Computer Law & Security Review 2024; 55: 106050.
  78. Mohanta A, Garikapati K, Sarangi NC, et al. AI, Refugee Status Determination, and Human Dignity: Ethical Challenges in Refugee Migration Management with Comparative Insights. In Human Values, Ethics, and Dignity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA USA, 2025; pp. 285–320.

Supporting Agencies

  1. Funding: This research received no external funding.