Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inclusive Processes for Refugees with Disabilities: Improving Communication for Deaf Forced Migrants

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Disability

Abstract

The coming into force of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has created an opportunity to evaluate and re-design responses to forced migration, on both domestic and international levels. Indeed, since the creation of the CRPD, international and domestic organizations have taken a number of steps to make their processes more inclusive. Communication is fundamental to almost every aspect of refugee-related processes, from registration, through status determination, to needs assessments and resettlement evaluations. Ensuring that asylum seekers and refugees, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing, are able to effectively communicate and access information throughout these processes is thus a crucial prerequisite to them being able to enjoy their rights.

The chapter first briefly summarizes the key international legal provisions governing the procedural and communication-related rights of refugees with disabilities and explores recent updates to UN Refugee Agency guidance in this area. It then examines existing scholarship that demonstrates the central importance of effective communication to the crucial refugee status determination (RSD) process. This is followed by an exploration of existing research on disability in forced migration, with particular attention to communication involving refugees who are deaf or hard of hearing. The chapter concludes with a discussion of possible next steps within research and practice best to ensure inclusive and effective communication and thus to promote the enjoyment of procedural rights and access to protection for deaf refugees and asylum seekers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout this chapter, I refer to deaf refugees and asylum seekers, and refugees with disabilities or disabled refugees, with an understanding that different individuals identify with different terms and have diverse naming practices. In many contexts, deaf people may identify primarily as being a member of a linguistic and cultural minority group and may or may not identify as being disabled. However, for some, the experience of disability is created or exacerbated through particularly difficult social, political, and legal structures, such as those common in situations of forced displacement. See, e.g., discussion in McAuliff (2021).

References

  • Anker, D. (1992). Determining asylum claims in the United States: A case study of the implementation of legal norms in an unstructured adjudicatory environment. NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 19, 433–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Human Rights Commission. (2014). The Forgotten children: National inquiry into children in immigration detention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J. (2001). Investigating narrative inequality: African asylum seekers’ stories in Belgium. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 413–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohmer, C., & Shuman, A. (2007). Rejecting refugees: Political asylum in the 21st century. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A. (2015). Procedural rights of the asylum-seeking child with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities according to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Göteborg Lund/Uppsala Migration Law Network. http://migrationlawnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bruce-short-summary.pdf

  • Byrne, R. (2007). Assessing testimonial evidence in asylum proceedings: Guiding standards from the international criminal tribunals. International Journal of Refugee Law, 19(4), 609–638. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eem056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camino Morgado, P. L. (2019). Riesgos invisibilizados: La necesidad de una directiva de atención a refugiados y refugiadas con discapacidad. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, J. (2021a). Intercultural communication in interpreting: Power and choices. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, J. (2021b). ‘That’s not how we speak’: Interpreting monolingual ideologies in courtrooms. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (2001). Questions of credibility: Omissions, discrepancies and errors of recall in the testimony of asylum seekers. International Journal of Refugee Law, 13(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/13.3.293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crock, M., Bones, K., Ghezelbash, D., Hollonds, J., & Kenny, M. A. (2020). Children and young people in asylum and refugee processes: Towards best practice. Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crock, M., Ernst, C., & McCallum, R. (2013). Where disability and displacement intersect: Asylum seekers and refugees with disabilities. International Journal of Refugee Law, 24(4), 735–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crock, M., Saul, B., McCallum, R., Smith-Khan, L., & Çorabatır, M. (2015). Syrian refugees with disabilities in Jordan and Turkey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crock, M., Smith-Khan, L., McCallum, R., & Saul, B. (2017). The legal protection of refugees with disabilities: Forgotten and invisible? Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos, A. (2016). An enabling interpretation of the refugee convention: Determination of refugee status in light of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In B. Burson & D. J. Cantor (Eds.), Human rights and the refugee definition: Comparative legal practice and theory (Vol. 5, pp. 253–273).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowd, R., Hunter, J., Liddell, B., McAdam, J., Nickerson, A., & Bryant, R. (2018). Filling gaps and verifying facts: Assumptions and credibility assessment in the Australian refugee review tribunal. International Journal of Refugee Law, 30(1), 71–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans Cameron, H. (2008). Risk theory and “subjective fear”: The role of risk perception, assessment, and Management in Refugee Status Determinations. International Journal of Refugee Law, 20(4), 567–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans Cameron, H. (2018). Refugee Law’s fact-finding crisis: Truth, risk, and the wrong mistake. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, National Ethnic Disability Alliance, Refugee Council of Australia, & Settlement Council of Australia. (2019). Barriers and exclusions: The support needs of newly arrived refugees with disabilities. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/disability-report/

  • Healicon, A. (2016). The politics of sexual violence: Rape, identity and feminism. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, B. (2008). Jordanian Sign Language: Aspects of grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlihy, J., Gleeson, K., & Turner, S. (2010). What assumptions about human behaviour underlie asylum judgments? International Journal of Refugee Law, 22(3), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, A., Maylea, C., David, C., & Nipperess, S. (2019). The changing face of disability and refugee services and policy in Australia: Implications for social work. Social Work & Policy Studies, 2(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, I., & Sivunen, N. (2022). Diverse challenges for deaf migrants when navigating in Nordic countries. In The Routledge Handbook of Sign Language Translation and Interpreting, Christopher Stone, Robert Adam, Ronice Müller de Quadros, Christian Rathmann (eds), ch 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, L., & Kusters, A. (2019). Sign languages. In K. Tusting (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography (pp. 340–355).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J., Pearson, L., San Roque, M., & Steel, Z. (2013). Asylum adjudication, mental health and credibility evaluation. Federal Law Review, 41(3), 471–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Targets, 15(2), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.03ing

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M., & Maryns, K. (2021). Managing narratives, managing identities: Language and credibility in legal consultations with asylum seekers. Language in Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404521000117

  • Jacquemet, M. (2011). Crosstalk 2.0: Asylum and communicative breakdowns. Text & Talk, 31(4), 475–497. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2011.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kälin, W. (1986). Troubled communication: Cross-cultural misunderstandings in the asylum- hearing. International Migration Review, 20(2), 230–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, M. A., & Fiske, L. (2004). “Marriage of convenience” or “match made in heaven”: Lawyers and social workers working with asylum seekers. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 10(1), 137–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Maire, A. (2018a, May 24). Deaf spaces in sign languages in Kakuma Refugee Camp. Retrieved 3 November 2021, from https://mobiledeaf.org.uk/1105-2/

  • Le Maire, A. (2018b, February 26). Entering Kakuma Refugee Camp. Retrieved 3 November 2021, from https://mobiledeaf.org.uk/entering-kakuma-refugee-camp/

  • Luker, T. (2013). Decision making conditioned by radical uncertainty: Credibility assessment at the Australia refugee review tribunal. International Journal of Refugee Law, 25(3), 502–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J., & Barrett, H. (2018). Human rights of refugee-survivors of sexual and gender-based violence with communication disability. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(1), 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maryns, K. (2005). Monolingual language ideologies and code choice in the Belgian asylum procedure. Language & Communication, 25(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maryns, K. (2006). The asylum speaker: Language in the Belgian asylum procedure. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maryns, K. (2013). Disclosure and (re)performance of gender-based evidence in an interpreter-mediated asylum interview. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 17(5), 661–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuliff, K. (2021). Deaf Refugees: A critical review of the current literature. CENDEP Working Paper Series, Centre for Development and Emergency Practice Oxford Brookes University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, E., & O’Sullivan, M. (2018). Protecting vulnerable refugees: Procedural fairness in the Australian fast track regime. UNSW Law Journal, 41(3), 1003–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, S. L. (2009). Citizenship and the performance of credibility: Audiencing gender-based asylum seekers in U.S. immigration courts. Text and Performance Quarterly, 29(3), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merlini, R. (2009). Seeking asylum and seeking identity in a mediated encounter: The projection of selves through discursive practices. Interpreting, 11(1), 57–92. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.05mer

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirza, M. (2010). Resettlement for disabled refugees. Forced Migration Review, 35, 30–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirza, M. (2014). Refugee camps, asylum detention and the geopolitics of transnational migration: Disability and its intersections with humanitarian confinement. In L. Ben-Moshe et al. (Eds.), Disability incarcerated: Imprisonment and disability in the United States and Canada. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaidou, Z., Rehnberg, H. S., & Wadensjö, C. (2019). Negotiating access with public authorities in research on asylum. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, E.T. (2019). Cooperation as a coping mechanism when interpreting between deaf refugees and hearing professionals. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 11(2), 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, V. (2014). Understanding disability under the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and its impact on international refugee and asylum law. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 42(3), 687–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöllabauer, S. (2004). Interpreting in asylum hearings. Interpreting: International Journal of Research & Practice in Interpreting, 6(2), 143–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. (2020). Investigating the language-culture nexus in refugee legal advice meetings. Multilingua: Journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication 39(4), 395–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K., & Harris, J. (2002). Disabled people in refugee and asylum seeking communities. The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppel, J. (1991). The need for the benefit of the doubt standard in credibility evaluation of asylum applicants. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 23(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, M. (2010). Understanding the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Handicap International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivunen, N. (2019). An ethnographic study of deaf refugees seeking asylum in Finland. Societies, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivunen, N., & Tapio, E. (2020). “Do you understand (me)?” negotiating mutual understanding by using gaze and environmentally coupled gestures between two deaf signing participants. Applied Linguistics Review, Advanced access. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0065.

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2017a). Different in the same way?: Language, diversity and refugee credibility. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(3), 389–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2017b). Negotiating narratives, accessing asylum: Evaluating language policy as multi-level practice, beliefs and management. Multilingua, 36(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2019a). Debating credibility: Refugees and rape in the media. Australia Review of Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 4–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2019b). Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: A critical discourse analysis. Griffith Law Review, 28(4), 406–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2019.1748804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2020). Migration practitioners’ roles in communicating credible refugee claims. Alternative Law Journal, 45(2), 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2021a). Deficiencies and loopholes: Clashing discourses, problems and solutions in Australian migration advice regulation. Discourse & Society, 32(5), 598–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2021b). “I try not to be dominant, but I’m a lawyer!”: Advisor resources, context and refugee credibility. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(4), 3710–3733. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa102

  • Smith-Khan, L. (2022). Incorporating sociolinguistic perspectives in Australian refugee credibility assessments: The case of CRL18, Advanced access. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00937-2.

  • Smith-Khan, L., & Crock, M. (2018). Making rights to education real for refugees with disabilities. (Background paper prepared for the 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report: Migration, displacement and education: building bridges, not walls, UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Khan, L., Crock, M., Saul, B., & McCallum, R. (2015). To ‘Promote, protect and ensure’: Overcoming obstacles to identifying disability in forced migration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(1), 38–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J. A. (2009). Credibility, proof and refugee law. International Journal of Refugee Law, 21(4), 700–726. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eep027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipton, R. (2008). Reflexivity and the social construction of identity in interpreter-mediated asylum interviews. The Translator, 14(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNHCR. (2011). Need to know guidance: Working with persons with disabilities in forced displacement. UNHCR.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHCR. (2013a). Beyond Proof: Credibility assessment in EU asylum systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHCR. (2013b). Resettlement Assessment Tool: Refugees with disabilities.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHCR. (2020). Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate. UNHCR.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Kleij, S. (2015). Interaction in Dutch asylum interviews: A corpus study of interpreter-mediated institutional discourse. LOT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, K., Amas, N., & Lagnado, J. (2008). Supporting disabled refugees and asylum seekers: opportunities for new approaches. Metropolitan Support Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • WFD, & WASLI. (2014). Submission (to the members of the United Nations committee on the rights of persons with disabilities) related to the draft general comment No. 2 on article 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • WFD, WASLI, European Union of the Deaf, WFD Youth Section, & European Union of the Deaf Youth. (2016). Submission (to the committee on the Rights of the child and the committee on migrant workers) for general comment on the rights of the child in the context of migration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, L. (2015). Deaf children and youth from refugee backgrounds: Pressing issues and possible solutions. In M. Crock (Ed.), Creating New Futures: Settling children and youth from refugee backgrounds (pp. 197–212). Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Women’s Refugee Commission. (2008). Disabilities among refugees and conflict-affected populations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Women’s Refugee Commission. (2015). “It doesn’t matter if you are disabled. You are talented.” The intersection of sexual and reproductive health and disability for Bhutanese refugees in Damak, Nepal. Women’s Refugee Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs, M. (2010). Real People, Real Needs: Deaf education in Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya. University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Laura Smith-Khan

Authors
  1. Laura Smith-Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Smith-Khan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Marcia H. Rioux

  2. Head Office, World Blind Union, Toronto, Canada

    José Viera

  3. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Alexis Buettgen

  4. Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo, State University, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Ezra Zubrow

Section Editor information

  1. Law School, The University of Sydney, The University of Sydney, Australia

    Mary Crock

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Smith-Khan, L. (2022). Inclusive Processes for Refugees with Disabilities: Improving Communication for Deaf Forced Migrants. In: Rioux, M.H., Viera, J., Buettgen, A., Zubrow, E. (eds) Handbook of Disability. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1278-7_26-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1278-7_26-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-1278-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-1278-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation