New study highlights the promise and shortcomings of US ‘Safe Mobility Offices’ (SMOs) in managing mixed migration in Latin America
With speed in process and doubling of resettlement numbers, SMOs show potential. But limitations hinder the offering of safer migration options.
Geneva / Copenhagen / Bogota – 12 September 2024 – A new study by the Mixed Migration Centre (MMC) of the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) examines the effectiveness of US ‘Safe Mobility Offices’ (SMOs) in Latin America. While the SMOs have been successful in resettling thousands of refugees and are generally seen as a positive initiative, the study finds they so far have limited influence on the number of people travelling along dangerous migration routes in the region.
The SMOs, which currently operate in Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Guatemala, aim to offer safer, alternative, pathways to the United States, and to reduce the number of people opting for dangerous migration journeys. However, the highly restrictive eligibility requirements on who can use the services, and the limited authority of SMOs to provide access to migration pathways other than refugee resettlement, undermines their ability to truly impact migration patterns.
“The SMO initiative itself is great but we need to address the shortcomings”, says Bram Frouws, director of the Mixed Migration Centre (MMC).
“The problem is that SMOs can systematically exclude people in transit, without documentation, or without legal status—ironically, the very individuals most at risk. For example, Haitians passing through Colombia on their way to the notoriously dangerous Darién Gap for the most part aren’t even eligible to try to apply, even though they are one of the eligible nationalities.”
Only nationals of nine countries are eligible to apply, and except for Guatemalans, none can apply from their home country. In practice, many are not eligible because there is a requirement that applicants must have been present in the partner country prior to the opening of the Offices (the exact date depends on the country), leaving out migrants who started their migration more recently. Only Venezuelans in Colombia and Guatemalans in Guatemala are being reached in a meaningful way. And this is only for resettlement. For those not approved for resettlement, no other options are provided.
Despite its challenges, the Secretary-General of the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), Charlotte Slente, underlines the importance of learning from the elements of the initiative that have worked well:
“Let’s take this opportunity to learn from the initiative. The positive achievements should serve as inspiration. For instance, the SMOs have significantly contributed to increased resettlement from the region, and notably increased the speed of processing. This has been achieved through improving the processing capacity and streamlining the process. This makes a real difference for those women and men, who are successfully approved for resettlement and helps them resume their lives faster and in safety.”
Up until May 2024, SMOs have contributed to the resettlement of 9,000 individuals according to US State Department. Resettlement numbers for Latin Americans to the US doubled in 2023 fiscal year compared to the previous year. While specific data on the proportion of resettlements through SMOs is unavailable, stakeholder interviews agree that SMOs played a significant role in this increase, but only on resettlement.
“To make a real difference, SMO’s must provide more access to other existing migration pathways to those who do not qualify for resettlement,” says Bram Frouws. “The 9,000 people resettled so far, remains a small fraction compared to the 2.6 million migrants and asylum seekers expected at the southern border of the US this year.”
Other legal migration pathways include humanitarian parole, work visas, and family reunification, but require being initiated by a relative or a sponsor in the USA and cannot be initiated through the SMOs. While SMOs do provide information on these options, they do not directly facilitate applications to these programmes, which remains a missing link.
“Migration is a key topic in the upcoming U.S. presidential elections, and while SMOs have sometimes been portrayed as massively increasing arrivals to the USA, this is far from the truth”, says Bram Frouws. “In reality, SMOs are not expanding the existing admissions caps on various migration channels, but they should make those pathways more accessible to those who need them most.”
The study also highlights several positive aspects of the SMOs, including strong coordination between different actors and the sharing of responsibilities between countries on migration issues. However, the simultaneous escalation of US border security and containment measures raises the concern that this will increase reliance on smugglers and further put people at risk, countering the positive potential of SMOs. Regarding asylum, it is crucial that SMOs are not used by policy makers to limit access to other existing asylum procedures further restricting the ability of vulnerable individuals to seek protection.
Finally, the study concludes that SMOs are a potential model to improve the governance of mixed migration towards Europe. Charlotte Slente concludes:
“The SMOs in Latin America demonstrate that it is possible with political commitment and investments to progress on finding ways to increase safe pathways. Such efforts provide a positive injection to the policy debate on mixed migration in the current political climate in Europe. And offers insights that should be explored as part of a patchwork of solutions for refugees and migrants. At the same time, we should be adamant though, that such initiatives do not become a leeway for restricting access to seek and enjoy asylum.”
Access the full report in English or Spanish here.
Access our Safe Mobility Offices Fact Sheet.
About the Study on Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs):
The study aimed to assess the SMO objectives and functioning, who can access them, how they influence migration decisions and dynamics, including irregular migration and smuggling towards the U.S, and whether the model was replicable. Data was collected from April to August 2024 through a desk review and 74 qualitative interviews conducted in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, the U.S., and Europe, involving migrants, refugees, U.S. government agencies, UN bodies, and migration experts.