Digital Borders and Algorithmic

Governance: Rethinking Migration Law

in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
The global migration regime is currently experiencing a "seismic shift" as sovereign states
transition from the physical enforcement of territorial frontiers to the deployment of "virtual
borders" governed by algorithmic logic and data-driven infrastructures. This evolution
1

represents a fundamental reconfiguration of the legal and administrative relationship between

the state and the mobile individual. In this emerging paradigm, artificial intelligence—
encompassing machine learning, biometric identification, automated decision-making (ADM),
and predictive analytics—is increasingly used to visualize, register, map, and profile populations
on the move. The digital border is no longer confined to a fixed geographic coordinate; rather, it
1

is an itinerant network of interoperable databases and sensors that accompanies the migrant
across space and time. This report examines the profound legal implications of this transition,
3

analyzing how algorithmic governance challenges traditional principles of due process,

transparency, and non-discrimination. By synthesizing supranational frameworks like the
European Union AI Act with national developments in the United Kingdom, the United States,
and India, the analysis reveals a "border industrial complex" where private commercial interests
and state security imperatives converge, often at the expense of fundamental human rights and
international obligations such as the principle of non-refoulement. 4

Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated systems into migration management
has given rise to "digital borders"—a decentralized ecology of surveillance and algorithmic
triaging. This research paper investigates the legal and human rights challenges posed by this
shift, focusing on the erosion of transparency, the exacerbation of structural discrimination, and
the dilution of accountability within migration law. Through a doctrinal analysis of international
instruments—including the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Union’s AI Act—and
qualitative case studies from the UK, US, and India, the study identifies a growing
"accountability gap" where complex algorithmic systems operate as "black boxes" beyond the
reach of traditional judicial oversight. The paper argues that current legal frameworks are ill-
equipped to address the "pseudo-scientific" claims of emotion recognition or the preemptive
exclusion of predictive profiling. It concludes by recommending a shift toward "explainability by
design," mandatory human rights impact assessments, and the establishment of enforceable
rights to algorithmic contestation to safeguard the rights of vulnerable populations in a data-fied
world.
Keywords: Algorithmic Governance, Digital Borders, Migration Law, Artificial Intelligence, Non-
Refoulement, Biometric Surveillance.

Introduction: The Datafication of the Global Frontier

The digitalization of migration governance is not a peripheral administrative update but a core
transformation of sovereignty in the twenty-first century. As states increasingly rely on
"algocracy"—the power of algorithms to make or influence life-altering decisions—the
bureaucratic subject is being replaced by the "data double". The historical trajectory of border
1

control has moved from the Weberian model of human-centered hierarchical oversight to a
system where programmability and codes dictate inclusion or exclusion. This transition is driven
7
by the perceived need for efficiency, security, and the management of "migration crises" through
technological solutionism. 2

The central research inquiry of this study seeks to understand how the use of AI in migration
management reconfigures the legal landscape of international protection. Specifically, it asks:
To what extent do digital borders undermine the procedural guarantees established under
international human rights law? How does algorithmic profiling replicate historical patterns of
racial and xenophobic discrimination? And what legal mechanisms are necessary to ensure that
the deployment of these technologies complies with the non-derogable principle of non-
refoulement?
The theoretical framework for this analysis is rooted in the concepts of "algorithmic
governmentality" and "digital borders". Algorithmic governmentality describes a mode of power
1

that relies on the extraction of vast quantities of data to anticipate and pre-configure the future
behavior of individuals. Digital borders, meanwhile, are conceptualized as "centers of
9

calculation" where data flows, biometric signatures, and traces of past passages are assembled
into scores that justify immediate institutional action. Unlike traditional borders, these virtual
1

systems are "itinerant," operating in the cloud and mediating the lives of refugees long before
and after any literal border crossing. 3

The significance of this study lies in its critical evaluation of the "border industrial complex"—a
multibillion-dollar industry where the profit motives of private technology firms converge with the
militarization of state borders. This commingling of power creates a "parallel legal framework"
4

for border control actors, where experimental and often intrusive technologies are tested on
vulnerable populations who lack the agency or legal recourse to contest them. The scope of
10

this research is global, yet it pays particular attention to the "Global South" perspective,
recognizing that digital identity systems and biometric tracking are often deployed
experimentally in these regions before being exported to the Global North. 12

Literature Review: Mapping the Algorithmic Turn in

Migration Studies
Existing scholarship on the intersection of technology and migration has moved beyond viewing
digital tools as mere instruments of efficiency to analyzing them as political actors that reshape
categories of citizenship and exclusion. Key scholars like Benvenisti highlight the "seismic shift"
9

in global governance, noting that the digital turn imports new modes of social sorting based on
algorithmic placements. This literature identifies "virtual borders" as a central site of data
1

extraction where standard hierarchies of inclusion are continuously recalculated. 1

Theoretical Frameworks and Key Scholars

Critical Migration Studies and Science and Technology Studies (STS) have been instrumental in
tracing the historical continuities of these technologies. Scholars argue that governing
populations through biometrics is not a new phenomenon but has deep roots in colonial-era
practices of registration and control. Mirca Madianou’s concept of "techno-colonialism"
16

describes how power asymmetries in humanitarianism are reproduced through digital tools,
creating relationships of dependency between the providers of technology and the populations
they surveil.
16

Petra Molnar, in her seminal work The Walls Have Eyes, provides a chilling ethnographic
account of how AI is used to track, intercept, and control forced migrants. Molnar argues that
18

border technology is designed to "solve" migration as a technical problem rather than

addressing its root causes, often leading to violent and deadly impacts on vulnerable
populations. This scholarship emphasizes that the "smart" border is built upon legacies of
19

criminalization and exclusionary policy. 19

E. Tendayi Achiume, the former UN Special Rapporteur on racism, has further developed the
concept of "Digital Racial Borders". Her research demonstrates how ostensibly race-neutral
20

migration policies—such as visa requirements or biometric identification—function as tools of

systemic racial exclusion. Achiume highlights that digital borders enhance the racialized
17

operation of sovereignty by bringing greater precision and scale to enforcement actions, often
masking their discriminatory nature in the "cloak of presumed neutrality". 20

Legal Debates and Emerging Reports

The legal discourse has increasingly focused on the "accountability gap" created by automated
decision-making. Scholars such as Margot Kaminski and Deven Desai have called for
"algorithmic accountability," highlighting the risks of error, bias, and the "dignitary" concerns of
being subjected to opaque machine logic. Recent reports from international organizations,
21

including the OHCHR and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have called for
moratoriums on high-risk AI systems—such as remote biometric identification—until adequate
safeguards are established. 22

Key Core Concept Impact on Migration Legal Theory

Scholar/Organization

Petra Molnar The Walls Have Eyes / Reframes border tech as an act of
Techno-solutionism resistance/violence.

E. Tendayi Achiume Digital Racial Borders Links digital surveillance to colonial

legacies of racial exclusion.

UN Special Rapporteur Algorithmic Bias / Calls for legal bans on human-rights-

Feedback Loops incompatible AI.

Benvenisti Seismic Shift / Social Analyzes the distributive effects of data-

Sorting driven decision-making.
Amnesty International System Aversion / Highlights how intrusive tech bars
Coercion access to basic aid.

Identifying Research Gaps: The Global South and India

Despite the growing body of work, significant gaps persist, particularly regarding longitudinal
empirical assessments and perspectives from the Global South. Much of the current literature
2

focuses on the European or North American contexts, often overlooking the massive, pioneering
programs in countries like India. The integration of India’s Aadhaar biometric platform into
13

refugee registration presents a unique case of "remote digital onboarding" that challenges
traditional concepts of legal status and citizenship. There is a pressing need for research that
14

examines how these "universal" digital identity programs interact with international refugee law
and the specific socio-political dynamics of the Majority World.8

Methodology: Doctrinal and Qualitative Inquiry

This research report adopts a multi-dimensional methodology, combining doctrinal legal
analysis with a qualitative assessment of policy documents and real-world case studies. The
doctrinal approach involves an exhaustive examination of international legal instruments,
including the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 4

This analysis is complemented by a review of emerging supranational legislation, most notably

the European Union AI Act and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 21

The qualitative component draws on a variety of primary and secondary sources:

 NGO Reports and Submissions: Analysis of reports from Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch, and Privacy International to identify on-the-ground human rights impacts. 12

 Case Law and Litigation Records: Detailed review of the iBorderCtrl case (Case T-
158/19) and the UK High Court rulings on Home Office automated systems. 31

 UN Mandate Reports: Critical synthesis of the findings from the UN Special Rapporteur
on contemporary forms of racism regarding digital border enforcement. 4

 Pilot Project Assessments: Evaluation of "smart border" initiatives such as ETIAS and
EES in the Schengen Area. 1

Ethical considerations are central to this study, particularly regarding the "experimental" nature
of many border technologies. The research acknowledges the inherent opacity of machine
learning models and the difficulties in establishing causation between algorithmic outputs and
specific human rights violations. Furthermore, the study addresses the risks of data
35

dispossession and the "Hobson’s choice" faced by refugees who must often compromise their
privacy to receive life-saving aid. The limitations of this methodology include the lack of public
10

access to proprietary code and the "trade secret" protections often afforded to the private
companies operating within the border industrial complex. 31
Findings and Discussion: The Role of AI in Migration
Systems
The deployment of AI in migration management is transforming the border from a physical
barrier into a sophisticated "sorting machine". These technologies are integrated across all
1

stages of the migration journey, from pre-departure visa screening to real-time border
surveillance and post-entry monitoring. 8

Risk Profiling and Automated Decision-Making

Automated decision-making systems are increasingly used to triaging applications and prioritize
casework. In the UK, the "Identify and Prioritise Immigration Cases" (IPIC) tool generates
recommendations for deportation and detention based on predefined business rules. In the EU,
29

the forthcoming "European Travel Information and Authorisation System" (ETIAS) will rely on
algorithmic risk criteria to screen visa-exempt travelers. These systems are designed to detect
33

"irregular travel patterns" or "security risks," but they often do so through opaque processes that
the individual cannot see or challenge. 1

The shift toward ADM involves a redistribution of discretion. Instead of a human officer
exercising context-sensitive judgment, the "rules of the game" are encoded by system
designers. This can lead to "administrative massacres"—injustice generated and administered
35

through banal bureaucratic infrastructures. When an algorithm assigns a "harm score" to

40

determine an individual’s suitability for electronic monitoring, the legal reasoning is replaced by
statistical correlation.
29

Biometrics and the Quest for Legibility

Biometric technologies—facial recognition, iris scans, and fingerprints—are the bedrock of the
digital border, rendering the migrant body "legible" to the state. In Syrian refugee camps, iris
10

registration has been made a compulsory prerequisite for accessing food rations, presenting a
coercive choice between identity compromise and starvation. While proponents argue that
12

biometrics reduce fraud and human error, critics point to the risks of "system aversion," where
refugees avoid registration to escape invasive tracking, thereby losing access to survival aid. 12

Furthermore, the accuracy of these systems is highly contested. Facial recognition often reflects
racial and gendered biases, with higher error rates for Black and Brown individuals. In India, the
4

Aadhaar system has been used to authenticate refugee identities, yet anomalies in biometric
matching can lead to exclusion from essential services like healthcare and education. 25

Technology Type Key Applications in Migration Primary Human Rights Concern

ADM / Algorithmic Visa triaging, asylum screening Lack of due process; opaque
Sorting (e.g., IPIC). decision-making.
Biometric Identity verification, aid Bodily autonomy; privacy; racial
Identification distribution (Aadhaar). bias.

Predictive Analytics Forecasting movement; security Preemptive exclusion; non-

profiling. refoulement risk.

Emotion Recognition Veracity testing (e.g., iBorderCtrl). Pseudo-scientific logic; right to

dignity.

Surveillance Drones / Real-time border monitoring Unauthorized data capture;

IoT (Frontex). militarization.

Predictive Logic and Preemptive Exclusion

One of the most concerning developments is the use of AI to "foretell" people’s intentions to
migrate. Predictive analytics allow states to allocate patrolling and deterrence resources to
10

routes before they are even undertaken. This "extractive logic" justifies violent pushback
10

practices, as authorities can intervene to halt movement far from their territorial waters. The4

logic of prediction broadens the temporality of border violence, moving from reactive control to
anticipatory interruption of mobility.
10

Critical Evaluation of Legal Challenges

The integration of AI into migration law creates a series of "existential threats" to fundamental
rights, often operating in a space of legal uncertainty. 10

Due Process and the "Right to Explanation"

A core tenet of the rule of law is the requirement for decision-makers to provide reasons for their
actions. AI systems, however, often operate as "black boxes," where even the operators
36

cannot explain the specific parameters that led to an adverse outcome. The GDPR provides a
36

limited "right to explanation" for automated decisions, but this right remains elusive for migrants
who may not even be aware that an algorithm was used. 21

In the case of the iBorderCtrl project, the European Court of Justice (Case T-158/19)
acknowledged that while there is a public interest in disclosing documents related to ethical
evaluations, "commercial interests" of the private consortium could justify withholding specific
details about the technology’s legality and reliability. This prioritization of trade secrets over
31
public scrutiny creates a barrier to accountability for individuals who may have been wrongfully
classified as "liars" by pseudo-scientific emotion recognition tools. 31

Discrimination and Structural Inequality

Digital borders do not merely discriminate by error; it is their core function to sort and
differentiate. The UN Special Rapporteur notes that AI systems are being deployed to advance
20

xenophobic ideologies, where algorithms misrecognize marginalized groups at higher rates,

leading to systemic exclusion. This is often exacerbated by "faulty language analysis"—
4

software used to determine a claimant’s national origin that is less accurate for certain dialects,
leading to disproportionate rejections of asylum claims on erroneous grounds. 4

The "cloak of neutrality" surrounding technology makes it difficult to challenge these

discriminatory outcomes in court. Because the discrimination is often "indirect" or "structural"—
20

arising from biased training data or optimization objectives—traditional legal frameworks that
require evidence of discriminatory intent often fail to provide a remedy. 11

Accountability and the Border Industrial Complex

The privatization of border control through the "border industrial complex" adds another layer of
complexity to legal accountability. States often contract private firms to manage digital
4

infrastructures, which allows them to "abdicate responsibility" for human rights harms by
pointing to the proprietary nature of the technology. This hybrid public-private governance
4

arrangement creates an "invisible bureaucracy" where the source of harm is difficult to pinpoint
and litigate.
7

Comparative Perspectives: EU, UK, US, and India

The deployment of digital borders is a global trend, but it manifests differently across
jurisdictions based on local legal frameworks and political priorities.

The European Union: The AI Act and Interoperability

The EU is at the forefront of regulating AI through a risk-based approach. The AI Act classifies
migration and border control systems as "high-risk," imposing requirements for human oversight
and risk management. However, significant gaps remain:
28

 Registration Exceptions: High-risk systems in migration are registered in a non-public

database, shielding them from civil society oversight. 44

 Interoperability Risks: Linking massive databases like EES and ETIAS increases the
potential for invasive data processing and discriminatory profiling. 33

 Emotion Recognition: Despite being high-risk, tools like iBorderCtrl continue to be

tested, raising concerns about their "scientific validity". 31

The United Kingdom: Automated Casework and Electronic Monitoring

The UK Home Office has faced significant litigation for its reliance on opaque algorithms. The 29

IPIC tool’s use of "business rules" to prioritize deportation has been criticized for lacking a clear
legal basis and for being subject to inadequate human review. Furthermore, the UK’s use of an
29

"automated harm score" to manage GPS tracking for individuals on immigration bail represents
a shift toward carceral AI, where freedom is mediated by an algorithmic metric. 29

The United States: CBP One and "Digital Metering"

In the US, the "CBP One" app has effectively institutionalized "digital metering". By making the
30

app the near-exclusive pathway to seek asylum at ports of entry, the government has created a
discriminatory barrier for those with poor digital literacy or limited access to technology. This
30

system traps asylum seekers at the border for long periods, often in dangerous conditions, and
has been challenged in court for violating the statutory right to seek asylum regardless of how
one enters the country. 30

India: Aadhaar as a Tool for Refugee Management

India offers a unique example of using a "universal" digital identity system—Aadhaar—to
manage refugee populations. While the integration of Aadhaar has facilitated access to aid and
14

banking for some registered refugees, the lack of a comprehensive domestic refugee law leaves
these individuals in a precarious legal position. The "remote digital onboarding" of migrants
25

raises concerns about data sovereignty and the potential for these systems to be used for mass
surveillance and exclusion of those deemed "illegal". 14

Human Rights Analysis: Integrating ICCPR, UDHR,

and the Refugee Convention
The digital border represents a "test case" for the resilience of international human rights law. 6

The Principle of Non-Refoulement

The absolute prohibition of refoulement—returning a person to persecution—is under pressure
from predictive and externalized border controls. AI tools that predict "intentions to migrate" or
6

interdict vessels based on remote sensors can lead to refoulement without any formal
recognition of refugee status. The use of "pseudo-scientific" tools to assess the credibility of an
6

asylum seeker’s fear undermines the "abductive reasoning" required for refugee status
determination, replacing human empathy with algorithmic scoring. 6

Privacy and Bodily Autonomy (ICCPR and UDHR)

The ICCPR (Article 17) and UDHR (Article 12) guarantee the right to be free from arbitrary
interference with privacy. The mass collection of sensitive biometric data—often without
4

informed consent—is a prima facie violation of these rights. When iris registration is a condition
10

for survival aid, the "consent" obtained is inherently coercive. Furthermore, the "systematic
12

project of legibility" expands the reach of state surveillance into the most intimate aspects of a
migrant’s life, including their physical movements and emotional states. 10

Legal Instrument Protected Right Challenged by Border AI via:

Refugee Convention Non-Refoulement Predictive profiling; preemptive

(Art. 33) interdiction.
ICCPR (Art. 14) / ECHR Right to a Fair Trial / Due Black box ADM; lack of explanation
(Art. 6) Process for denials.

ICCPR (Art. 17) / UDHR Right to Privacy Invasive biometrics; unauthorized

(Art. 12) data extraction.

ICERD (Art. 1) Non-Discrimination Algorithmic racial profiling; biased

datasets.

Original Critical Insights: Moving Beyond Description

This analysis reveals that the "digital border" is not just a technological advancement but a
fundamental shift in the temporality and spatiality of migration law. The border is now
"preemptive"—it acts before the body arrives—and "itinerant"—it follows the body into every
digital interaction. This reconfiguration creates a "virtual legal agent" where the programmer’s
3

code effectively replaces the judge’s gavel. 35

Furthermore, the "border industrial complex" represents a new form of "global algorithmic
violence," where the convergent harms of structural inequality, data extraction, and direct state
force are mediated through proprietary code. The use of untested technologies on refugees is
40

an act of "involuntary experimentation," where the most vulnerable populations serve as the
laboratory for systems that will eventually be used to surveil the general citizenry.10

Conclusion and Recommendations: Restoring Human

Rights to the Digital Frontier
The digitalization of migration governance has outpaced the legal frameworks designed to
regulate it, resulting in a profound erosion of fundamental rights. To bridge this "accountability
gap," a radical reconfiguration of migration law is required.

Legal and Policy Reforms

1. Mandatory Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs): States and international
organizations must be legally required to conduct comprehensive HRIAs before deploying
any AI system in the migration context. These assessments must be transparent,
12

inclusive of affected populations, and subject to judicial review.

3

2. Enforceable Right to Explanation and Contestability: Legal frameworks must go

beyond the "logic involved" requirement of the GDPR to establish a robust "right to
explanation" that includes the specific "key parameters" used in an individual decision. 36
 Affected persons must have a clear, accessible mechanism to contest algorithmic findings
before a human judge. 15

3. Prohibitions on High-Risk "Pseudo-Science": There should be a permanent ban on

the use of emotion recognition, automated veracity testing, and biometric categorization
based on sensitive attributes. These tools are incompatible with human dignity and the
22

standards of international protection. 22

4. Transparency in the Border Industrial Complex: Contracts between states and private
technology firms must include non-negotiable clauses for algorithmic transparency. The4

"commercial interest" exception in access-to-information laws must be strictly narrowed in

the context of human rights-sensitive technologies. 31

5. Algorithmic Bias Audits and Representative Data: Regular, independent audits should
be conducted to detect discriminatory feedback loops. Training data must be "race-
22

literate" and inclusive of the diverse cultural contexts of the Majority World to prevent the
replication of historical inequalities.
3

Reflections on Future Implications

As AI systems become more integrated into global governance, the "itinerant border" will
continue to blur the distinction between citizen and migrant, security and surveillance. The
3

treatment of refugees interacting with AI today is a "test case" for the future of democracy and
the rule of law for all. Unless we establish "explainability by design" and restore human agency
6

to the decision-making process, we risk entering a future of "speculative citizenship," where

rights are allocated based on the opaque calculations of a machine rather than the inherent
dignity of the human person. The goal of migration law in the age of AI must be to ensure that
6

technology serves as a tool for empowerment rather than a mechanism of exclusion. 54

Works cited

1. Virtual Borders – International Law and the Elusive Inequalities of ..., accessed on
April 24, 2026, [Link]
and-the-elusive-inequalities-of-algorithmic-association/
2. Migration Control of Persons as a Process Influenced by Generative AI: An
Exhaustive Systematic Review - Computación y Sistemas, accessed on April 24,
2026, [Link]
3. Digital Borders and Virtual Rights: A Brief Overview of Technology and Forced
Migration from a Liberal Feminist Perspective - Refugee Law Initiative Blog,
accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
and-virtual-rights-a-brief-overview-of-technology-and-forced-migration-from-a-
liberal-feminist-perspective/
4. Executive Summary: Race, Tech & Borders FINAL, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
[Link]
5. Books — Petra Molnar, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
6. Refugee protection in the artificial intelligence era - Chatham House, accessed on
April 24, 2026, [Link]
[Link]
7. FROM WEBERIAN BUREAUCRACY TO ALGORITHMIC GOVERNANCE: THE
TRANSFORMATION OF THE BUREAUCRATIC SUBJECT IN PUBLIC
 ADMINISTRATION - SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
8. AI, surveillance and the privatisation of migration management, accessed on April
24, 2026, [Link]
privatised-migration-management/
9. (PDF) Geographies of migration III: The digital migrant - ResearchGate, accessed
on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
II_The_digital_migrant
10. The EU AI Act and the violent logics of border AI | Internet Policy Review,
accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
border-ai/2062
11. SOCIAL ORDER IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE USE OF
TECHNOLOGY IN MIGRATION GOVERNANCE AND DECISION-MAKING by
APURVA, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
12. RACE, BORDERS, AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES - ohchr, accessed on April
24, 2026,
[Link]
gies/Amnesty_International.pdf
13. The role of artificial intelligence in the digital transformation of government:
opportunities and ethical challenges - PMC, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
14. Biometric Technology at the Borders of Citizenship: Identifying Technical
Standards for Introducer-Based Remote Onboarding in Global Contexts of
Statelessness, Nomadism, Displacement, and Refuge - PMC, accessed on April
24, 2026, [Link]
15. Civil society and the (im)possibilities of algorithmic contestation in migration
governance, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
16. Full article: Digital technologies and migration: behind, beyond and around the
black box, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
17. E. Tendayi Achiume - MacArthur Foundation, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
18. Petra Molnar, The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence | International Journal of Refugee Law | Oxford Academic, accessed
on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
eeaf033/8431317
19. The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. By
Petra Molnar, New Press, 2024, 277 pp. | Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees,
accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
20. (PDF) Digital Racial Borders - ResearchGate, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
21. The Right to Explanation, Explained - Colorado Law Scholarly Commons,
accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
article=2335&context=faculty-articles
22. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - AI
for Good, accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
actions/ohchr/
23. A/HRC/56/68 - General Assembly - the United Nations, accessed on April 24,
2026, [Link]
24. Thematic Reports | Tendayi Achiume, United Nations Special Rapporteur on
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, accessed on
April 24, 2026, [Link]
25. Artificial Intelligence: Refugee Registration and Identity ..., accessed on April 24,
2026, [Link]
registration-and-identity-management-in-india/
26. Non-Refoulement: The Search for a Consistent Interpretation of Article 33 -
Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
27. Article 9: Risk Management System | EU Artificial Intelligence Act, accessed on
April 24, 2026, [Link]
28. High-level summary of the AI Act | EU Artificial Intelligence Act, accessed on April
24, 2026, [Link]
29. Privacy International issues complaint to the UK regulator regarding ..., accessed
on April 24, 2026, [Link]
international-issues-complaint-uk-regulator-regarding-deployment-two
30. “We Couldn't Wait”: Digital Metering at the US-Mexico Border | HRW, accessed on
April 24, 2026, [Link]
metering-us-mexico-border
31. iBorderCtrl – Transparency complaint against secret EU surveillance research
“iBorderCtrl” - Patrick Breyer, accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
[Link]/en/posts/iborderctrl/
32. High Court declares Home Office immigration decision-making system unlawful -
DPG Law, accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
declares-home-office-immigration-decision-making-system-unlawful/
33. Europe's uncertain plans for rolling out the automated border system ETIAS -
Statewatch |, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
out-the-automated-border-system-etias/
34. Will AI 'subtly' take over decision-making in the EU migration context? Warnings
and lessons from ETIAS and VIS, accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
[Link]/wp-content/uploads/sites/575/2023/03/5.3.-Gugliotta-Elbi.-.pdf
35. Artificial Intelligence and Asylum Decision-Making: Any Role for ..., accessed on
April 24, 2026, [Link]
36. A Legal Framework for eXplainable Artificial Intelligence - ETH Zurich Research
Collection, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
34210e6dd32f/download
37. General Court (Tenth Chamber), Case T-158/19, 15 December 2021 - JuLIA
Project, accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
law/213
38. Enhancing border management systems using Artificial Intelligence - VFS Global |
Insight, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
[Link]
39. Events — STS MigTec, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
40. The Banality of Global Algorithmic Violence: Global digital transformation's
cultivation of predatory algorithmic governance - University College London,
accessed on April 24, 2026, [Link]
02/The%20Banality%20of%20Global%20Algorithmic%[Link]
41. The human in the feedback loop: Predictive analytics in refugee status
determination - Informit, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
2?download=true
42. The Impact of Digital Surveillance on Freedom of Expression in the Americas -
Organization of American States, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
43. [Link], accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
[Link]
44. E uropean Journal of Legal Studies - European University Institute, accessed on
April 24, 2026,
[Link]
[Link]
45. EU: Secrecy of border control 'lie detector' research project examined in court -
Statewatch |, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
detector-research-project-examined-in-court/
46. Full article: Addressing climate change in the age of artificial intelligence: three
registers of human rights struggles - Taylor & Francis, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
47. Regulating AI at Europe's Borders - Verfassungsblog, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
48. UNHCR AI APPROACH, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
[Link]
49. New Biden Executive Action Further Eviscerates the Right to Seek Asylum:
Frequently Asked Questions About the Latest Anti-Immigrant Policy, accessed on
April 24, 2026, [Link]
further-eviscerates-the-right-to-seek-asylum-frequently-asked-questions-about-
the-latest-anti-immigrant-policy/
50. India's borders are evolving into integrated, intelligent security ecosystems driven
by data & AI: Dr Rajendra Kumar - ET Government, accessed on April 24, 2026,
 [Link]
indias-border-management-the-role-of-ai-and-data-in-national-security/130222860
51. AI Governance Policies, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
52. Artificial intelligence policy worldwide: a comparative analysis | Royal Society
Open Science, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
intelligence-policy-worldwide-a
53. Three shades of 'urban-digital citizenship': borders, speculation, and logistics in
Cape Town - EUI Cadmus, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
20b9bfcd2d57/content
54. Migration information infrastructures: power, control and responsibility at a new
frontier of migration research - ResearchGate, accessed on April 24, 2026,
[Link]
tructures_power_control_and_responsibility_at_a_new_frontier_of_migration_rese
arch