Interesting info on the flow of refugees and asylum seekers to the US for anyone who follows such matters. The complexity of policies and procedures and the large number of persons they affect are quite evident, hence all the talk about reforming immigration by the Trump admin. The bottom line however is that it is becoming much more difficult to get into the US for people from the Global South, as is the case in the EU. UNHCR 's new Head, an Iraqi , will face a big headache in his mandate.
Fouad
Refugees and Asylees in the United States Nicole Ward and Jeanne Batalova Migration Policy Institute January 8, 2026 Click here for the article Summary More than 117 million people globally had been displaced from their homes by conflict or other crises as of mid-2025. Upon returning to office in 2025, the Trump administration set the refugee admissions ceiling at 7,500 for fiscal year 2026, the lowest in the program's 45-year history, and paused decisions on many asylum cases. This followed the Biden administration's increase to over 100,000 admissions in FY 2024. In the first three months of FY 2026, just 720 refugees were resettled in the United States. Nationals of Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Venezuela were the top three origin groups in FY 2025. The administration's expanded travel ban affected nationals from 39 countries, and 43 percent of refugees resettled in FY 2025 were from countries where Muslims make up roughly half or more of the population. More than 3.9 million asylum applications were awaiting processing as of September 2025, with the average case taking about four years to complete. The administration also sought to end Temporary Protected Status for nationals of 11 countries, affecting an estimated 1.1 million individuals. Quotes "More than 117 million people globally had been displaced from their homes by conflict or other crises as of mid-2025, up from 81 million in 2020." "The administration then set the refugee admissions ceiling at 7,500 for fiscal year (FY) 2026, the lowest in the program's 45-year history." "The U.S. policy changes occurred within a broader global context, as governments across high-income countries drastically cut foreign aid and development support in 2025, with humanitarian aid globally down 40 percent from 2024 as of midyear." "More than 3.9 million asylum applications were awaiting processing as of September 2025." "The average asylum case in immigration court takes about four years to be completed."
The migrants could, of course, try to reach high-income countries in the Arab and Muslim world, like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, etc. It would also be consistent with the Islamic ummah, as many are Muslims. Such an approach should not be alien to the new Iraqi head of the UNHCR. It would also be appropriate as both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have aided and abetted the wars in Sudan and Yemen, resulting in humanitarian catastrophes that inevitably will create millions of refugees and migrants.
ReplyDeleteThere are very few Syrian and Iraqi refugees in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf states because those countries do not operate asylum systems. They are not parties to the UN Refugee Convention, offer no legal refugee status, and have no pathway to permanent residence or citizenship. Their migration model is built around temporary, tightly controlled labour under sponsorship, not the long-term protection and rights that refugees require. Accepting refugees would mean permanence, legal obligations and social integration, precisely what Gulf regimes seek to avoid. Europe, by contrast, received refugees not primarily out of kindness or generosity, but because its legal and institutional framework requires them to.
DeleteExactly—and that abdication is a choice, not a law of nature. The Gulf states’ refusal to sign the Refugee Convention, establish asylum systems, or offer durable solutions is not a technical oversight but a deliberate strategy to avoid responsibility. That strategy has been indulged for far too long.
DeleteIf the new High Commissioner is indeed an Iraqi, a credible starting point would be to stop treating wealthy Muslim states as permanent bystanders to refugee protection and to press them—publicly—to accede to the conventions, build asylum systems, and shoulder obligations commensurate with their wealth, influence, and regional role in the conflicts that generate displacement. Until then, lectures to Europe and the US ring hollow. Responsibility cannot only remain a Western legal duty.
Indeed. We are now invited to welcome the appointment of a former head of state, H.E. Barham Salih, as High Commissioner for Refugees. H.E. Salih is from Iraq, a country that has never ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention.
DeleteIs it really baffling that Washington is less than thrilled about underwriting an organisation whose leadership choices seem increasingly guided by an enthusiasm for DEI hiring, rather than demonstrating commitment to the legal obligations at the very heart of the Refugee Convention? Using other people’s money to signal virtue has always been easier than persuading wealthy, non-signatory states to assume real responsibilities.
H.E. Salih's priority should be to explain to Europe and the US why the rules apply only to them.
Let’s keep a sense of proportion. Things could be worse. The IMF Board might yet appoint Nicolás Maduro as Managing Director and cite his “lived experience” with inflation.
DeleteThis is not a joking matter. The position of High Commissioner for Refugees is one of the most demanding and norm-anchored roles in the international system. It requires unimpeachable standing on refugee protection, not merely seniority or symbolism.
DeleteDuring the years when Barham Salih occupied senior offices like Deputy Prime Minister, Prime Minister and President, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled the country. There were also periods when Iraq refused to accept the return of failed asylum seekers from Europe, creating diplomatic and legal stand-offs. It is fair to ask what responsibility he bore for this during his time in national leadership.
Appointing a High Commissioner from a non-signatory state, with a mixed record on displacement and returns, inevitably raises questions about credibility. UNHCR does not need symbolism or “lived experience.” It needs leadership that can credibly press all states, especially wealthy, non-signatory ones, to comply with the refugee protection regime they have long managed to wriggle out of.
Salih, as President of Iraq, had the full authority to sign the Refugee Convention, but opted not to. A head of state can sign a convention, but not ratify it. The signing process only involves the state expressing its intention to be bound by a convention, while ratification is the formal confirmation. If a state signs a convention but does not ratify it, it is not legally bound by the convention, and the state can withdraw from it at any time. Even so, the new head of the UNHCR did not sign the Refugee Convention while head of state in Iraq. That fact will not make it easier for him to convince states that have not signed the convention to do so. A review of the UN's appointment process for top positions should be part of the reform process.
Delete