What happens to asylum seekers whose claims are rejected? The common assumption is deportation or voluntary return. But the truth is, many find themselves trapped in a state of legal limbo – a state of indefinite waiting. Deportation often proves impossible due to legal, logistical, or humanitarian obstacles. Frequently, travel documents are missing, and new ones are difficult to obtain. Or there is no diplomatic or travel connection to the country of origin. At the same time, routes to any legal status remain limited or blocked.

Based on a new working paper, in this post, I’ll explore this often-overlooked reality of rejected asylum seekers in the German context – their pathways out of irregularity and how these are shaped by time and policy frameworks.

The Duldung system and irregularity in Germany

Unlike many other countries, Germany has a specific system for managing rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately deported: the Duldung. It is a key feature of Germany’s approach to managing rejected asylum seekers, and as of late 2023, over 120,000 individuals in Germany have held this (non-) status. Deportation remains on hold for these individuals due to existing barriers, creating a legal limbo that underscores the complex situation faced by many rejected asylum seekers.

While recent reforms under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) aim to streamline asylum procedures, they don’t fully address the realities of long-term irregular status. The resulting uncertainty and lack of clear pathways have profound impacts on individuals’ lives, affecting their well-being, access to resources, and ability to integrate. These challenges can also have broader societal implications, such as affecting social cohesion and contributing to irregular labour markets.

Having a rejected asylum application and a Duldung (a temporary suspension of deportation and not a residence permit) puts individuals in an irregular status with no legal rights to remain in the country. With deportations on hold, regularisation mechanisms, including Germany’s new Residence Opportunity Act (introduced in late 2022) and voluntary return assistance programmes, offer alternative potential pathways out of this irregularity.

But what are rejected asylum seekers’ experiences of these pathways? How do time, policy, and individual agency shape how they navigate out of irregularity?

Uncovering the Pathways: A Data-Driven Approach

Understanding available pathways out of irregularity after an asylum application is crucial, yet often hampered by limited access to detailed data. My research overcomes this hurdle by using a comprehensive and, in this context, uniquely available longitudinal dataset of over 400,000 observations spanning from 2013 to 2022. These records offer rare insights into the transitions these individuals make, capturing their personal characteristics and how legal frameworks evolve over time. This rich data allows me to explore how people navigate the complexities of their status within Germany’s legal and policy environment.

At the heart of this study is the concept of “liminality.” It describes the precarious, in-between state experienced by migrants whose status remains unresolved. This framework helps me understand how time, policy frameworks, and individual choices shape the trajectories of rejected asylum seekers. By combining this framework with advanced event history analysis, I disentangle the temporal dynamics and structural influences on the three pathways out of irregularity: voluntary departure, deportation, and regularisation (achieving a secure status).

The role of time: how long does limbo last?

Time plays a crucial role in how people navigate their irregular status. My research reveals distinct patterns in how individuals find pathways out of irregularity:

• Voluntary Departure: Most common within the first two years after an asylum rejection, this pathway represents a frequent way to end irregularity. However, voluntary departure becomes increasingly unlikely as time progresses.
• Regularisation: Achieving legal status, on the other hand, becomes increasingly likely over time, eventually occurring as frequently as voluntary departure. This suggests that individuals may need time to meet the requirements for legal status, such as finding employment or learning the language.
• Deportation: Forced returns account for a small fraction of cases – around 10% in my data – underscoring the significant logistical, legal, and humanitarian barriers to forced removals.

The observed temporal patterns highlight the protracted nature of irregular status for many individuals, with some remaining in this precarious state for several years.

The impact of policy

Germany’s evolving migration policies also play a significant role in the pathways out of irregularity. Here are some key findings:

• Safe-Country Designations: Introduced in 2016 for Western Balkan countries, these policies aimed at expediting asylum processing and encouraging voluntary returns. Rejected asylum seekers from these countries exhibit distinct temporal patterns, with significantly higher and faster voluntary departure rates compared to those from other countries of origin. Yet, these patterns appear to be independent of the policy itself, suggesting that other factors, such as pre-existing migration networks or economic conditions in the home countries, may be more influential.
• Duldung Variations: Employment- and training-based Duldungen, which offer structured routes to regularisation by providing access to vocational training and the labour market, are effective in facilitating pathways to secure a residence permit. Conversely, the punitive ‘Duldung light’, which restricts access to essential services and exacerbates uncertainty for those deemed to be uncooperative in the identity clarification process (establishing and documenting the identity of an asylum seeker), often unintentionally prolongs irregular status.

How to balance enforcement and support

The findings call for migration policies that balance enforcement with regularisation mechanisms. Early interventions, such as return counselling and assistance, could facilitate timely voluntary departures, preventing individuals from becoming trapped in liminality. Simultaneously, expanding pathways to regularisation for long-term irregular migrants – such as the new Residence Opportunity Act – can address the multifaceted challenges of prolonged liminality, especially as both voluntary and forced departures become less frequent over time. The punitive measure of the ‘Duldung light’  appears counterproductive, failing to prompt resolutions.

These insights highlights the complexity of irregular migration, moving beyond the simplistic regular-irregular divide, by demonstrating how the length of an irregular stay shapes individual experiences, aspirations, and actions, influencing when and how irregularity is resolved. By emphasising the critical role of temporal dynamics, the research underscores the need for policy solutions that account for these complexities.