Clinical Social Work’s Place in Migrant Justice: A Call to Act on Our Ethical Commitments

Abstract

Migrating people fleeing violence and persecution face narrowing options to seek safety through the U.S. immigration courts. Social work’s historical and ongoing commitment to immigrant health and immigrant justice supports an enlarged presence within asylum and other immigration processes. In the role of experts, social work clinicians can evaluate displaced people to collect evidence of harm, draft reports and affidavits for the lawyer, and may even testify to educate the court on the physical and mental sequelae of violence and trauma. They play an essential part in communicating the complexity of migrating people’s stories to adjudicators. Social work clinicians seeking to join this work will attune to cultural humility, relationship building, and an opportunity to support displaced peoples’ human right to safety, in line with the skills and values of the profession. This paper serves as a brief introduction to how clinical social workers can use their mental health expertise to contribute to immigrant legal proceedings, as well as a call to action to invite both new and established social workers to use their clinical skills to meet our profession’s ethical obligations to the human rights of migrating people.

1. Introduction

For social workers committed to human rights, observing the narrowing of legal paths to safety for migrating people entering the United States (U.S.) may feel difficult and desperate. Denial and diminishment of migrating people’s rights, dignity, and access to due process are evident in media headlines, but more importantly, this criminalization of migration disrupts and traumatizes families and communities nationwide (e.g., Acevedo 2025; Gulbas and Zayas 2017; Madani 2025). Anti-immigrant rhetoric and constricted opportunities to pursue safety through legal pathways (American Immigration Council [AIC] 2021) are championed by political leadership, making the now-routine immigration-related legislative standstills and broken promises particularly bleak (Immigrant Legal Resource Center [ILRC] 2024; Ainsley and Tsirkin 2024).

While most social workers recognize our ethical duty to civic and political action, whether through community organizing, the electoral process, or other forms of advocacy, the current immigrant rights situation underscores the need for social workers to join with other mental health practitioners using their skills to actively support and advocate for the safety and humanization of migrating people. Social workers have a unique opportunity to organize within and beyond the electoral process to promote the human rights to safety, health, and due process in the context of deportation threats (Libal et al. 2022; Misra et al. 2021; Rosenberg 2019; Saadi et al. 2020). Regardless of citizenship status, these basic human rights of migrating people must be protected (United Nations 1948, 1951). While the U.S. and other nations have positive obligations to fulfill these rights (United Nations 1966, 1967; United Nations (General Assembly) 2018), social workers have the opportunity to put these rights, which are the cornerstone of social work practice, into action (Nipperess 2023). A key approach is via provision of clinical evaluations and expert testimony when displaced people seek asylum, face risk of deportation, or seek release from detention, which facilitates adjudicators’ understanding of migrating peoples’ experiences of violence, trauma, and future risks to survival that can occur with deportation (Baranowski 2020; Malphrus 2007; Mathis 2024).

Immigration courts have the capacity to realize the noblest ideals of safety, justice, and due process for persecuted people. Although courts are not the sole arbiter of human rights, they can be a place where these rights are recognized and acted upon. Gaining status through the court opens opportunities for migrating survivors of violence to pursue their other human rights beyond the legal sphere (Androff and Mathis 2022). However, immigration courts are notorious for their multi-year backlogs, lack of accessible, affordable legal representation, linguistic barriers, and fickle outcomes (Katirai 2020; Levesque et al. 2022; Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse [TRAC] 2024). Legal advocates such as defense attorneys, nationally qualified representatives, and community organizations work to support migrating people in putting forth their claims to the court (Mathis 2024). On the front line of legal advocacy, they work to amplify the voice and autonomy of migrating people and to support their access to dignity, due process, and just outcomes. Other trained professionals can join legal advocates to build strong claims and support the wellbeing of migrating people before and during the immigration court processes (Androff and Mathis 2022; Ardalan 2014; Scott and Aronson 2021).

In this paper, we argue for clinical social work’s expanded role in the immigration court space to more fully represent the complexities of human life, to encourage adjudicators to acknowledge the risks when refuge is denied, and to fulfill the social justice commitments of our profession. We also offer a roadmap about how mental health experts fit into the court space, as well as salient information about how to complete evaluations from assessment, report writing, and testimony, as well as working with legal advocates, navigating stress and burnout, and grounding some of the ethical elements that shape our profession’s commitment to this work.

2. The Role of Experts

Although courts are largely inhabited by lawyers and legal advocates, other professionals can serve an essential role in immigration cases. These professionals include country conditions witnesses, medical personnel, forensic examiners, and mental health experts who provide objective clinical or academic assessments of the client and case circumstances (Scruggs et al. 2016). Medical and mental health experts serve a key role in assessing physical and mental health sequelae of trauma and document human rights violations (Baranowski 2020; McKenzie and Emery 2021). Both medical and mental health professionals can provide information related to an individual’s experiences and projected health-related needs.

Skilled legal advocates can also use expert assessments to understand their client better, to build rapport and connection, and to corroborate aspects of a migrating person’s testimony, such as persecution or violence, which helps build an argument for the credibility of their claim (Hunter et al. 2013; Paskey 2016). An evaluator’s report demonstrating health outcomes can highlight congruency with persecution or violence described in a client’s testimony (Paskey 2016). Legal advocates can also use evaluators’ reports to help contextualize trauma reactions of individuals, such as poor memory of traumatic experiences, freezing or belligerent responses to cross-examination, or a demeanor that may not “fit” a judge’s or government attorney’s idea of how someone who has experienced violence should present emotionally (Herlihy and Turner 2018; Paskey 2016; Webb et al. 2022).

Experts may also provide recommendations that detail the types of supports or approaches a migrating person needs to adequately tell their story to the judge, such as “safeguards” that prevent recreating “environments reminiscent of interrogation” for survivors of torture (Chang-Muy and Congress 2023, p. 157), and help protect someone’s ability to access due process. Other recommendations may relate to practical conditions, such as explaining the benefit of a migrating person having a trusted support person sitting next to them while testifying, or if the judge or ICE trial attorney should employ a less adversarial approach to cross-examination. Ultimately, experts support the legal advocate to build a more complete legal case, support the facts of a claim, and help the court understand the broader context in which the migrating person is seeking safety from violence or extraordinary hardship (Ferdowsian et al. 2019; McKenzie and Emery 2021).

3. Mental Health Experts

Clinical evaluators conduct in-depth forensic mental health assessments, providing expertise on previously experienced hardship and trauma, as well as the potential risks if deported. For example, when a parent is deported, youth are at notable risk of elevated trauma and emotional and financial harm, which can result in detrimental lifelong and intergenerational outcomes (Dreby et al. 2022; Fuentes-Balderrama et al. 2024; Pinedo and Escobar 2024; Zayas 2022). For survivors of domestic violence seeking asylum, evaluations can assess the likelihood of lethal outcomes of deportation (Cook-Heffron 2016). Drawing from assessments with a migrating individual, possibly also their family members, and a robust knowledge of trauma research and country-specific information enables a provider to illustrate the harm of deportation. The declarations they create can be used in affirmative and defensive claims, both to support petitions to USCIS and to bolster the arguments of legal advocates in immigration court.

Evaluators’ work provides crucial context for a migrating person’s testimony, and they also help build up information that supports the facts of the case and strengthens a claim of persecution. They can document physical injuries, such as scarring, that can corroborate testimony about being attacked or abused. The “profound and enduring” nature of psychological symptoms means that they can persist long after an experience of violence (Lustig et al. 2008, p. 8), but psychological harm can be harder to corroborate and may require mental health assessments to evaluate behavior or actions consistent with particular diagnoses (Malphrus 2007). Experts provide an additional voice to articulate to the court how a migrating person’s body or mind reflects consistency with their testimony (Malphrus 2007).

In a deportation defense case, expert evaluators may serve additional key functions (Atkinson et al. 2021; Scruggs et al. 2016). They can help the court understand the migrating person’s presentation and testimony, such as facial expressions, affect, or communication patterns, in addition to normative trauma responses under questioning, such as rapid heart rate, difficulty breathing, memory loss, and panic, initiating fight, flight, or freeze responses (Paskey 2016; Rogers et al. 2015). It is essential that the court understand the effects of trauma, particularly if a migrating person were to become catatonic, jumbled, or frozen; start weeping uncontrollably; or appear belligerent (Herlihy and Turner 2018; Paskey 2016). Without that added information, the court might misread a migrating person’s responses as withholding information or lying (Mathis 2024; Paskey 2016).

Other examples of the role of an evaluator’s affidavit and testimony include consequences of health conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries, or the body’s response to traumatic incidents (Saadi et al. 2020). For cases with sexual violence, this contextualization can be particularly important, such as when someone may not fully remember events or was reluctant to seek medical services due to fear of retraumatization or stigma (Allen-Leap et al. 2023; McQuaid et al. 2024; Nayak et al. 2023). Experts’ insights can help explain to the court why it may not be realistic to expect a migrating person to provide certain types of evidence: on the worst day of someone’s life, why would they be documenting, taking pictures, or getting letters certified? Mental health experts give the court tools to understand why the absence of information specific to a traumatizing event is not equivalent to being deceitful and helps to manage the high burden of proof required of often deeply traumatized people (Paskey 2016; Redman et al. 2021).

Each evaluator has their own approach and expertise, but some core steps include connecting with an attorney, learning about the case, evaluating the individual, and writing their declaration for the court. Mental health experts can be nurses, medical doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers (both MSW or LCSW), or other counseling professionals credentialed in physical or mental health working in a wide range of settings. While each immigration judge has their own preferences and expectations for credentialed professionals, the attorney who requests the evaluation will seek out the expertise that is best for their case, court, and context (Mathis 2024). Evaluators also must assess if they feel their expertise is the best fit for the case and communicate with the requesting attorney to clarify expectations.

4. Evaluation

After learning about the legal and contextual content from an immigration attorney and case notes, evaluators meet with the client to complete the psychological or mental health evaluation, which will include an assessment of physical health needs due to the interconnections between physical and mental health and systemic factors. For example, if a child has a chronic medical condition that can be managed well in the U.S., the risk of deportation affects not only the child’s physical health but also the mental health of the child, parents/caregivers, and any other family members. Social workers identify and communicate this complexity to the court through affidavit and if necessary, testimony (Gomez and Berthold 2022). The evaluation typically lasts 2–3 hours in person or by video conference to ensure visual assessment of body language, affect, and social cues (Bayne et al. 2019; Mishori et al. 2021). In-person assessments may occur in the evaluator’s office, in the detention center if a migrating person is detained, in someone’s home, or another community-based location that feels safe and appropriate to the migrating person and the evaluator. If in a detention center, evaluators must be particularly mindful of maintaining privacy, confidentiality, and comfort level while asking sensitive questions.

Special consideration is also given to clients with particular vulnerabilities, which, among others, can include youth or older adults, clients who are gay/queer, or those who are transgender (Critelli and Yalim 2023). For example, knowledge of youth-focused strategies that can include use of play, drawing, or other developmentally appropriate activities may facilitate greater comfort. With older adults, recognition of potential cognitive concerns or deeply held cultural beliefs is important. Assessing cognition is a routine part of any assessment, but the questions, pace, and style may be slower or otherwise modified with older adults, depending on individual needs. In regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, migrating people may originate from countries with lower acceptance of their identities. Providers must be attuned to past discrimination or violence an individual may have faced related to identity before, during, and after migration, and be attuned to their own preconceived notions or beliefs that could be harmful during the assessment. Demonstrating authentic acceptance of and support for clients is a foundation for the therapeutic relationship and for inquiring about sensitive topics.

The value of mental health evaluators’ expertise is multifaceted. First, retelling stories can re-traumatize a migrating person, so an evaluator is valuable for helping to mitigate further trauma through employment of trauma-informed strategies (Nayak et al. 2023; Paskey 2016). Evaluators also help ensure clients understand relevant assessment factors, such as scope of the evaluator’s practice, confidentiality parameters, question rationale, and how information will be used (Mercado et al. 2022). A skilled evaluator will understand that someone has been required to tell their story many times during their journey, perhaps to more hostile or adversarial audiences such as immigration enforcement. The evaluator seeks to empower clients to share on their own terms and to feel in control of their narrative (Baranowski et al. 2018). Finally, evaluators will detect both mental health symptoms that may necessitate referrals for treatment and sources of strength and resilience to promote positive self-realization, further empowering clients.

Challenges also exist when conducting assessments. A key challenge is language barriers, which can entail an evaluator not speaking the same language as a client or not being familiar with the specific nuances or non-verbal cues, even if the same language is spoken, based on country, culture, and local community (Berthold and Fischman 2014; Tazi et al. 2023). Use of an interpreter can detrimentally impact rapport building and effective communication, creating a barrier to the process (Mercado et al. 2022; Tazi et al. 2023). While working with an interpreter may be a new skill for some evaluators, many organizations offer training in best practices, such as looking at and speaking directly to the client, asking one question at a time, and providing appropriate pauses for interpretation. As evaluators become more adept at these norms and familiar with common concerns of clients, they often find that they are able to focus solely on the client, building a similar level of connection as they would without an interpreter.

Another challenge evaluators experience is limited knowledge about someone’s culture, as migrating people originate from across the globe. Evaluators can reduce this challenge by self-educating about the client’s country, region, or culture in advance of the assessment, in addition to asking clients about their own experiences and meaning-making in that culture (Baranowski et al. 2018). Maintaining cultural humility, a mainstay of social work training, is essential to conducting effective, high-quality evaluations (Mercado and Venta 2022; Vinson et al. 2019). Competent evaluators work to understand clients’ experiences of their own symptoms and how they make meaning of them in their own cultural framework and systems (Baranowski et al. 2018). Applying trauma-informed approaches to inquire about one’s cultural beliefs and practices and welcoming client input on any evaluator’s beliefs or assumptions is essential not only to building rapport and gaining trust but also for honoring the client’s autonomy and voice in a carceral process that often denies the complexity of their humanity.

5. Developing an Affidavit

Post-evaluation, the evaluator writes a report formatted as an affidavit or declaration, which can vary in regard to format, structure, and content (Hampton and Mishori 2023; Mercado et al. 2022). This report (see example in Appendix A) usually provides the evaluator’s credentials, followed by a brief biopsychosocial and trauma history and description of the client’s speech, body language, and behavior. Quotes, pictures, diagrams, and other material may be included to support the medical and mental health information provided. The following section generally provides a summary and assessment, in which the evaluator discusses reported and observed symptoms and any potential diagnoses based on these symptoms (or, for evaluators not yet qualified to diagnose, they may make recommendations of diagnoses to consider if the client receives future mental health treatment), and the expert’s opinion about whether the symptoms are consistent with the experiences of trauma in the claim. An affidavit may also include recommendations for treatment and social or support services and whether that treatment would be available and accessible outside of the U.S. if the migrating person were to be deported. Medical and psychological information must be communicated without jargon, in a way that is understandable for non-medical professionals, and makes it easy for the judge, trial attorney, and defense attorney to understand (Hampton and Mishori 2023). Some experts can also include evidence from the scientific literature that corroborates the applicant’s presentation of trauma or explore cultural aspects that they recommend that the court keep in mind, which might play a role in presentation of trauma or other symptoms.

6. Testimony

Evaluators are rarely required to testify, as the report is typically sufficient for the legal claim. In the atypical cases where an evaluator does testify, testimony is usually brief and provided by phone or videoconference, since the court allots limited time for a hearing. More often, an attorney will ask an evaluator to be on standby in the unlikely event that the judge has questions about their credentials or something in the affidavit. When testimony is likely, evaluators typically work with the attorney for advanced preparation regarding what to expect in the courtroom. Though judges typically demonstrate appreciation for the expertise in difficult case decision-making, testifying can be intimidating and stressful (Brabeck et al. 2025; Mathis 2024). Due to the length of time for a hearing to be scheduled, as well as frequent resets and continuances, learning about the outcome of a given case may take years. Evaluators who evaluate and provide affidavits for individuals in affirmative USCIS cases, such as VAWA petitions, may never need to provide testimony.

7. Impact of Mental Health Evaluations

Empirical data are limited (Atkinson et al. 2021; Sharp et al. 2019), but a growing body of literature endorses the importance of expert knowledge and assessment in immigration cases (e.g., Akinsulure-Smith et al. 2023; Atkinson et al. 2021; Chapman and Schwartz 2024). One study found that asylum applicants who received evaluation to support their case were more than twice as likely to have a positive outcome in court (Lustig et al. 2008). The significance of mental health evaluation contributions for asylum claims is noted for immigrant survivors of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (Akinsulure-Smith et al. 2023), torture (Baranowski et al. 2018), and unaccompanied children (Rosado et al. 2024).

8. Collaboration with Legal Advocates

An immigration case requires a collective response, so evaluators function in a collaborative capacity for this work; despite their work with a client being individualized, the assessment is only one vital component of a case (Baranowski et al. 2018; Mathis 2024). The mental health assessment, and testimony if provided, along with documents and materials from the client’s family, country conditions experts, medical service providers, letters from employers and other community members, as well as the migrating person’s own declaration and testimony, will all come together to illustrate a migrating person’s comprehensive situation. Although this interprofessional work has complications (Ardalan 2016; Mathis and Androff 2023), each role contributes its part, at the “intersection of human rights and medicine,” to create windows into the complexity of a migrating person’s life (Mathis 2024, p. 208; Rathod et al. 2017).

Throughout this process, evaluators can help the attorney respond better to their client and give the attorney tools to forward the case, such as teaching them about PTSD and how that might manifest during contentious cross-examination. Evaluators can also help amplify the voice of the migrating person in making decisions about how their case will be built and their decisions for the direction of their case. An evaluator supports the migrating person in self-determination when choosing from the narrow options available to an individual in the US enforcement process, whether that would be a voluntary self-deportation to escape the punishing process of adjudication (Levesque et al. 2022) or choosing to stay on and fight a multi-year case for an asylum claim.

Although the evaluator is retained by the legal team and works with the attorney’s guidance, it is important that they draw upon their own independent professional expertise and represent accurately and fairly what they see and know to be most effective in the legal case. The efficacy of an evaluator’s affidavit depends on their credibility and the court’s perspective of their objectivity. This means that although forwarding the human rights of migrating people, building out meaningful due process, and representing their humanity can be seen as advocacy, it is important that the evaluator works within the scope of their profession, supporting justice through provision of information and psychoeducation (Zayas 2022). An evaluator who is seen as an activist may not be perceived as credible by the court, and their affidavit and testimony may be rejected from the case. The legitimacy and usefulness of the evaluation to the client, the case, and the court are predicated on maintaining professional distance and working with empathy and objectivity to endorse the credibility of the claim. Despite the narrow focus on evaluative capacity, evaluators’ roles in a case can support hugely impactful outcomes for individual cases and for broader case law that increases the safety of and systems accountability to migrating people.

9. Call to Action

These evaluations may be completed by mental health experts from many different clinically oriented professions. However, social workers constitute the majority of mental health service providers in the United States (Polinsky et al. 2022) but may be under-represented in the sphere of asylum evaluations, based on the dearth of scholarly literature. Need for mental health evaluations far outstrips the availability of evaluators regardless of credentialing or profession (Singer et al. 2020). The profession stands poised to enlarge its presence in this vital area of human rights-centered work. The core tenets of social work, the clinical skills taught in MSW programs, and the commitment to justice can serve social workers well in this work.

Table 1. Social work skills and ethics in the expert evaluator’s role.

	Social Work Skills	Social Work Values
Evaluation of Forcibly Displaced Survivors of Violence	Empathy, communication, critical thinking, active listening, self-care, patience, cultural humility, trauma responsiveness, human rights advocacy	Service, Dignity and Worth of the Person, Competence
Documenting Harms	Organization, communication, self-care, human rights advocacy	Competence, Relationships
Testifying to the Court	Patience, self-care, professional commitment, human rights advocacy *	Integrity, Competence, Social Justice

* Evaluators represent their professional, skilled assessments in testimony, which contribute to case advocacy by providing information.

illustrates the alignment of social work skills and ethics in each step of evaluation, report writing, and testimony.

10. Social Work Ethics, Principles and Values

Social workers carry a responsibility, through the National Association of Social Work (NASW) Code of Ethics, to micro- and macro-level service provision with immigrant communities (National Association of Social Workers [NASW] 2021). Not only are social workers called to learn about “social diversity and oppression” as pertaining to multiple dimensions of diversity, including national origin and immigration status, but also to avoid discrimination and to “prevent and eliminate” mistreatment of individuals based on factors, including immigration status (National Association of Social Workers [NASW] 2021, sct. 1, 4, and 6). Further, social workers have the obligation to resist unjust actions and advocate for the human rights and wellbeing of people regardless of status or citizenship (National Association of Social Workers [NASW] 2021). Through trauma-informed evaluations that acknowledge contexts of discrimination and racism in both interpersonal and structural contexts, information sharing, and education advocacy, social workers can seek more just outcomes for migrating people.

Reflecting the importance emphasized by NASW, multiple social work scholars have also called on social workers to advocate for and serve immigrant communities (Chang-Muy and Congress 2023; Furman et al. 2015; Kiehne and Androff 2021; Negi et al. 2018; Rafieifar and Held 2022). Within the global social work framework, the International Federation of Social Workers’ (IFSW) Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles recognizes the inherent dignity of humanity and the necessity to promote human rights, social justice, and self-determination, treating people as whole persons (International Federation of Social Workers 2018). It endorses challenging discrimination and institutional oppression, challenging unjust policies and practices, and committing to equitable distribution of resources. Each element of these ethical principles is present and possible with this form of advocacy, in particular, focusing on the complexity of a whole person to challenge discriminatory institutional practices. Mental health professionals, including clinical social workers in migration-destination regions such as Australia and Europe, engage in this area of medico-legal evaluation and advocacy as well, with room to expand capacity, credentialing and impact (Freedom from Torture 2016; Tay et al. 2013; Tullio et al. 2023). Forensic mental health social workers in many countries around the world already inhabit similar roles in child welfare or cases where mental health needs intersect with legal systems, indicating the rich potential for our profession to expand further into this area of immigration advocacy, shaped by each country’s asylum processes. Although this paper primarily focuses on U.S. immigration contexts for mental health evaluation work, a globally oriented clinical social worker committed to solidarity and professional integrity can draw on this work to connect expertise across borders for survivors of violence who cross them seeking safety.

11. How Are Social Workers Prepared?

Social work clinical evaluators are prepared in multiple ways for this work. First, the basic social work tenets of building rapport, active listening, and centering the client allow for building the requisite level of comfort and connection quickly for the assessment. In addition, social workers are trained to use knowledge of trauma and utilize trauma-informed principles to create a sense of safety and reduce the risk of re-traumatization (Center for Disease Control [CDC] 2022). Trauma-informed principles, which include components such as safety, trustworthiness, collaboration, empowerment, and attunement and response to identity, culture, and context, apply across settings. These can mean creating a calm and nonjudgmental atmosphere for evaluation (safety), being clear about the scope of a role (trustworthiness), holding an evaluation at a location that feels safe and comfortable to a client, when possible (collaboration), supporting client autonomy and voice in telling their story (empowerment), avoiding stigmatization and unnecessary labeling, and acknowledging the carceral context of the evaluation (identity, culture and context) (Mathis et al. 2024). A trauma-informed approach to evaluations can also improve not just the comfort of the client in telling their story and increase their sense of empowerment, but also the quality of information collected in an evaluation (Berthold 2023; Goldenson et al. 2022; Mercado et al. 2022; Tazi et al. 2023; Webb et al. 2022).

The tasks for this work are squarely within social work’s wheelhouse as mental health evaluators. It is essential to remember that the evaluator defines the scope of practice—whether in a therapeutic session, a written document, or an oral testimony—to that which is within the scope of their training and experience (Zayas 2022). Evaluators new to the forensic setting may be concerned about their inexperience in the legal field or what questions may arise in an immigration setting. While consulting with the client’s lawyer is prudent, evaluators can apply the same skills they would if a client asks for advice that is out of an evaluator’s scope. These skills entail referring clients when appropriate, then redirecting conversations to content within the evaluator’s scope.

12. Stress, Distress, and Burnout

The reality of immigration advocacy is that results are unpredictable. Ever-changing case law and politically intertwined policy is an uncertain space where meaningful justice is hard to come by, and legal advocates burn out at an incredibly high rate (Harris and Mellinger 2021; Rabil et al. 2021; Rønning et al. 2020). Consequences of burnout include leaving the profession or area of advocacy work, mental and physical health sequelae, and diminished capacity (Mathis 2024; Snider et al. 2024). Social work clinical practitioners are often trained in intensive advocacy efforts with few rewards, delayed outcomes, and frequent defeat by indifferent systems, inept bureaucracies, and antagonistic emissaries of structural violence. Social workers are trained to manage negative emotions related to client outcomes and gaps in systems while also promoting a strengths- and resilience-based perspective. Practitioners are trained to understand that their work is only one component of a client’s needs, so they are unlikely to have unrealistic expectations of their assessments or a client’s situation. This work is seeking a small part of justice within larger enmeshed systems, where legal, social, economic, psychological, and rights and outcomes are connected (Androff and Mathis 2022).

Social workers can orient legal teams to the larger human rights and social justice commitments of the profession to sustain them through the disappointment and disillusionment that prolonged exposure to the U.S. immigration enforcement processes brings. As evaluators, social work clinicians can cultivate self-care tools for the clients they evaluate, empower them and their families with psychoeducational information, and work to support them as they encounter retraumatization in the courts’ adjudicatory process (Levesque et al. 2022; Katirai 2020). They can support colleagues as they jointly navigate the vicarious trauma that exposure to stories of extreme violence can bring, the moral injury incurred through participation in a violent carceral system, and the burnout and resignation that often follow (Frost 2024; Harris and Mellinger 2021). Social workers are equipped to name, acknowledge, and address experiences in immigration enforcement; center client self-determination and dignity; cherish the small wins; redefine success when necessary; and find restoration in the commitment to act in accordance with social work ethics for human rights. They share the load. And the more social workers that join in this capacity, as evaluators, witnesses, and colleagues, the broader the impact on colleagues, clients, and the courts themselves may be.

13. Conclusions

Social work has an obligation to support migrating people and has historically done so in many different ways (Briskman and Cemlyn 2005; Chang-Muy and Congress 2023; Masocha and Simpson 2012; Nash et al. 2006; Scott and Aronson 2021). Bringing clinical social work expertise to bear in demonstrating the humanity, strength, and complexity of migrating people’s stories is an important way to resist the criminalization of migrating people and the institutional process that seeks to flatten and erase the humanity of people seeking safety across our borders. Social workers have an ethical responsibility to migrate people, our communities, and the broader society to engage in social and political action that “ensures all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs” (National Association of Social Workers [NASW] 2021). Using social work training, skills, and capacity on behalf of migrating people seeking safety through the courts is an important place for our profession to expand its impact.

Social work students and evaluators both have opportunities to begin their engagement in this area of practice (see Appendix B). Students may consider strengthening their education about migration experiences through electives, field placement opportunities, or seeking relevant literature (e.g., publicly available through NASW) and trainings (Cook Heffron et al. 2024). In addition to growing knowledge specific to migration issues, students interested in learning more can connect with clinical social workers who conduct assessments to begin better understanding of the processes while also completing a training on how to conduct mental health assessments for immigration court (see resources at the end of this publication).

Master of Social Work (MSW) programs are well positioned to strengthen both explicit and implicit curriculum in this area (Cook Heffron et al. 2024). Course content can include training not only on working with migrating people but also specifically on conducting assessments for immigration court. This content aligns with courses on generalist social work that teach biopsychosocial assessments, in addition to practicing with diverse communities and diagnosis-based clinical courses. Electives that center on migration or forensic social work are also valuable classes for this content. Implicit curriculum, including use of case examples in class, guest lectures, introduction to Know Your Rights trainings, and optional trainings outside of the classroom, can also be incorporated into MSW programs.

Social work educators can also support currently practicing clinical social workers in gaining knowledge and experience of this work through provision of similar training to that offered to students (Wieling et al. 2020). Once trained, social workers may consider partnering with another evaluator already doing this type of assessment to first observe an assessment interview and then to have their first assessment observed. Collaboration, supervision, and mentorship amongst evaluators can increase clinical effectiveness (Baranowski et al. 2018). Assessments by social workers with and without clinical licensure are essential and valuable contributions for an individual’s case; if a mental health diagnosis is believed to be present for a client, then having a clinically licensed provider is the best approach for supporting an individual. When not available, an assessment without the diagnosis may still be a vital part of the documentation for a legal hearing.

While social workers continue to work towards the larger goals of migrant justice through policy change, clinically oriented social workers can harness their expertise to provide necessary support for migrating people in harmful systems. We hope that this call to action illustrates not only how social work’s ethical and value commitments map onto this area of work but also how our profession’s clinical skills equip social workers to collaborate with legal service providers to provide mental health evaluations that support the dignity and voice of migrating people navigating immigration enforcement processes. Every migrating person deserves the right to be heard and to have their full, complex story told clearly and on their own terms. Whether a desire to get involved is catalyzed from an ethical commitment to social justice, solidarity (Libal et al. 2022; Yarris and Duncan 2024), frustration with the U.S.’s xenophobic international and domestic policies (Baranowski et al. 2018), a desire to resist human rights violations of a harmful system (Baranowski 2020; Cházaro 2021), or a desire to grow as a professional, social work can and should rise to the challenge of providing trauma-informed evaluations to support migrating people’s access to safety. Ethical commitments involve aligned action, and we hope this article provides social workers with a path forward.