Returns and Reintegration

Returns take place under diverse motivations and circumstances, ranging from independent or voluntary returns to deportations and removals.

In principle, forced returns refer to the deportation and removal of people by authorities, carried out against the person’s will. Voluntary returns usually stem from refugees’ and migrants’ willing choice to go back to their origin country – often, with the support of specific voluntary return and reintegration programmes managed by the IOM or other organisations and partners.

In practice, the line between voluntary and forced returns is often blurred. Many migrants feel pressured to return because of economic hardship, loss of legal status or coercive environments, which challenges the notion of “voluntary” return. In such cases the concept of “accepted returns” is a better lens to consider decision making processes in the context of return. Accepted returns, for example, can occur when migrants in an irregular situation, including asylum seekers or refugees whose residence permits have been withdrawn, cooperate with authorities on their return. However, their decision may be influenced by a legal order and potential sanctions, leaving them limited alternative options than to return.

Returns of those without the right to stay do reduce the number of people in an irregular situation in a country. However, there is little evidence to show that the threat of forced returns acts as an effective deterrent to reduce irregular migration. Policies focusing on expulsions, deportations, or pushbacks tend to push refugees and migrants toward more dangerous or covert routes, rather than stopping movement altogether. Expanding safe, regular pathways and ensuring rights-based, dignified return procedures with sufficient and long-term reintegration support are far more effective in addressing irregular migration in the long term.

Reintegration experiences depend heavily on how a return takes place and what support is available before, during, and after it. Inadequate preparation — including limited access to information, counselling, or financial assistance — can leave returnees unready and vulnerable. Many face debt, economic hardship, or social stigma, particularly those forcibly returned. Migrants who are detained before return often have less access to information, counselling, and preparation, further hindering their reintegration. Rights violations during return processes, including detention or the use of force, can cause trauma and undermine people’s ability to rebuild their lives. Sustained, long-term reintegration support — economic, psychosocial, and social — can help people rebuild their lives.

Returns are usually managed by national authorities in destination countries, often in partnership with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which operates Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programmes. In Europe, Frontex is increasingly involved as well. Additionally, other organisations, such as UN agencies, international and local NGOs and others can play a role in post-return assistance. 

Non-refoulement is a core principle of international law that prohibits returning a person to a country where they would face persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or other serious harm. It is enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention but also in broader human rights instruments such as the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In simple terms, no one — regardless of status — should be sent back to a place where their life or safety would be at risk.

While often associated with refugees, non-refoulement applies to all migrants, regardless of their legal status. This includes rejected asylum seekers and migrants in irregular situations who may face danger, abuse, or detention if returned to a given country. The principle therefore protects anyone at risk of serious harm.

For example, when people are intercepted at sea or pushed back to Libya — whether by the Libyan Coast Guard (often supported by EU funding and coordination) or through cooperation agreements with European states — they are frequently returned to a high risk of arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence, forced labour, and extortion. Such actions can constitute a breach of the non-refoulement obligation.

Upholding non-refoulement is essential to any rights-based and dignified return process, ensuring that no one is sent back into harm’s way.

When the conditions that led people to migrate remain unchanged — or worsen — many consider migrating again. Migrants who return to economic hardship, insecurity, or social stigma may see re-migration as their only viable option.

This can seem contradictory, but both unsuccessful and successful reintegration can lead to further migration for different reasons. Unsuccessful reintegration can trap people in involuntary immobility, they want to leave but do not have the means to do so. Successful reintegration can give them the resources and confidence to move again if better opportunities exist elsewhere.

Strengthening reintegration support — alongside addressing the drivers of migration — is essential to ensure that return becomes a genuine, sustainable choice rather than a temporary pause.

MMC has been conducting research on return and reintegration dynamics since 2017, drawing on data collected through its 4Mi Return surveys with people who have gone back to their countries of origin. These surveys capture first-hand experiences of return — including how returns occur, the conditions under which they take place, and how people rebuild their lives afterwards. Through this work, MMC provides independent, evidence-based insights to inform rights-based and sustainable return and reintegration policies and practices worldwide.