The US government’s app CBP One is part of a digital migration control regime that favours border externalisation, paralyses human mobility and saturates the capacity of organisations that support asylum seekers and other migrants in Mexico.

In theory anyone can seek asylum in the US regardless of their immigration status. In reality, most of those who want to seek asylum in the US need internet access and a phone to download and use the CBP One application (app). With this app, asylum-seekers can schedule appointments to start the application process in the US. The appointment scheduling function can be accessed in the centre and the north of Mexico. As such, the US American asylum application process begins in Mexico, the vertical border that divides the US and Latin America.

This article analyses the CBP One app as part of a digital migration control regime and explores how its use shapes asylum-migration policy and practice on both sides of the border. I draw on ethnographic research I conducted from October 2022 to July 2023 in Tapachula, Chiapas (southern border), Mexico City and Tijuana, Baja California (northern border), Mexico.

Smartphones are an integral part of migration processes. Phones are essential to design travel routes, maintain and create social relations, keep and share information, send and receive money, and apply for or renew visas. Phones are used to store evidence relevant to asylum applications. They can also enable coordination between migrants and organisations that support them; this can help asylum seekers to advance their own agendas and achieve their goals.

However, although digital technologies can serve the interests of migrants (including asylum seekers), they also instrumentalise surveillance and control. For example, the US immigration authority’s SmartLINK app monitors migrants through virtual checks and regular communication with immigration agents. Other digital technologies like SISCONARE, the digital platform for asylum application processes in Brazil, are used for immigration enforcement. While these technologies facilitate communication and may save time for authorities and some migrants, they limit its use to those who have access to technological devices – those who are literate and digitally skilled – they also threaten human rights and affect users’ psychological wellbeing. The use of mobile phone apps like CBP One increases the number of checks along migratory routes and turns migrants’ phones into mobile borders.

Why was the CBP One app introduced?

The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched CBP One in 2020 as a portal to services. Although the app was not designed for asylum seekers, from January 2023 it became the main way to apply for asylum and humanitarian parole in the US from Mexico.

Before 2023, CBP mostly relied on third parties to input information on behalf of individuals. During Title 42 restrictions, authorised organisations would send the CBP information, on behalf of people seeking humanitarian exemptions to Title 42. From April 2022, CBP allowed Ukrainian citizens under the programme ‘Uniting for Ukraine’ to register their information. This programme allowed hundreds of Ukrainians to enter the USA, while other migrants and asylum seekers had to wait in Mexico. In January 2023, the CBP granted migrants of other nationalities the right to register their own information.

The transformation of CBP One into a migration management tool was due to changes in US immigration policy. The following four policies led up to this transformation:

• Waiting lists or metering (February 2016)
  This policy operated in border cities in the north of Mexico, first with paper lists and then digital ones. Asylum seekers, and then Mexican organisations and authorities kept the lists. Every day, the CBP asked for the list and let a number of people into the US. In November 2021 this policy was declared to be illegal and was withdrawn.
• Migrant Protection Protocols (MMP) or ‘Remain in Mexico’ (January 2019)

This policy allowed applications for asylum at the southern US border to be processed while sending people back to Mexico to wait for their hearings in the US. It was suspended in January 2021, terminated in June 2021, modified and reinstated in December 2021, and ceased in October 2022. There are no new records or hearings.

• Title 42 (March 2020)
  This policy allowed the US government to expel migrants and asylum seekers on the grounds of protecting public health. At least 2.8 million expulsions took place under Title 42, and it was criticised for its lack of substance related to public health issues. The public health emergency declaration that justified the expulsions expired on 11^th May 2023.
• Circumvention of Lawful Pathways (CLP) or ‘Asylum ban’ (May 2023)
  This rule presumes that those who cross the US southern border without authorisation are ineligible for asylum if they do not have a CBP One appointment, or if they were granted asylum in a third country en route to the US. Exemptions apply to those who were provided with authorisation to travel to the US to pursue a humanitarian parole process, those with a CBP One scheduled appointment, those who were unable to access and use the app, those who were denied asylum in a third country and unaccompanied children. The rule has been the subject of two lawsuits.

Digital technologies have supported the implementation of these policies, which have enabled the US authorities to use Mexico as an external border. Under economic pressures, including tariffs on Mexican exports, Mexico has accepted this condition. CBP One is an instrument of control, a form of metering 2.0 that keeps asylum seekers within the Global South.

The way CBP One functions has changed over time. Every day CBP assigns a limited number of appointments. People fill their applications out  and they are put into a lottery type system and notified the following day whether they have an appointment, which is usually a few weeks later.

Migration-asylum policy and practice paralyse mobility

The use and the effects of CBP One do not begin at the US-Mexico border. Many people already know about the app from the onset of their journeys. Due to the numerous changes in migration policies, migrants and asylum seekers have to change their plans constantly; they have to request asylum in Mexico even if they do not want it, and wait in cities where they do not have support networks. During my research, numerous changes were made to US-American and Mexican migration policies, and Mexico remained one of the countries with the highest number of new asylum applications worldwide. Detentions of irregular migrants in Mexico reached record levels in 2023.

Why is it important to think about asylum and irregular migration in Mexico in relation to CBP One? Thousands of people cross Mexico’s southern border in search of safety and opportunities in the US, Canada and Mexico. The current migration policies and practices undermine their journeys. The use of refugee status and complementary protection in Mexico is part of a deterrence strategy.

Let’s think about the case of Nicole and Ale (25 and 30 years old), a transgender heterosexual couple from Central America who fled transphobic violence and waited months in Tapachula for documents.[i] Thousands of people are stranded in Tapachula waiting for a resolution on their refugee status or other documents that let them move around Mexico safely and avoid irregular routes. Despite not wanting to stay in Mexico for fear of being identified by their perpetrators, Nicole and Ale applied for and got refugee status in Mexico.

Gabriela, (Salvadorian refugee, 29 years old) also told me: “I did not want refugee status… it was to be able to move forward…”

Refugee status is being used as a transit permit and it is almost the only way to gain access to migration documentation in Mexico. The process takes months and in some instances asylum seekers are left with their cases unresolved indefinitely. In 2023, only 20% of the total asylum applications were assessed. “The strategy is to tire people out,” said human rights defender Guillermo Naranjo.

It is a problem that Mexico uses refugee status as the main documentation for forced migrants. This is not only because the position of Mexico being a ‘safe country’ is questionable, but also because seeking refugee protection in Mexico might affect the applicant’s chances of gaining asylum in the US. Under the CLP rule, one of the exemptions applies to those who were denied asylum in a third country, including Mexico. However, how can asylum seekers fulfil this criterion if Mexico lacks the capacity to assess asylum applications? The widespread use of refugee status is a border externalisation strategy that links the US asylum process with Mexico’s.

CBP One is a form of documentation that, in some cases, enables transit through Mexico. Migrants and asylum seekers I interviewed confirmed that, without immigration papers, the bus companies refused to sell them tickets for the trip. These companies and the Mexican migration authorities often ask them for proof from CBP One that states that the person in question must be in the centre or north of Mexico.

Madison (an Ecuadorian refugee and transwoman, 22 years old) who I met in Tapachula explained that even though she had been granted a humanitarian visa, that allows travel through Mexico, the bus company would not let her board until she had confirmation from CBP One: “I got confirmation from CBP One that I had to get to a port of entry so that I could travel. Then they let us on, we went to Mexico City.” – Madison

The use of refugee status and CBP One in Mexico helps keep forced migrants within the limits of Latin America. Compared to previous migration control systems, the strategy has been effective at spreading forced migrants throughout the country, but it has overwhelmed receiving cities and shelters especially in the southern and northern borders of Mexico. Asylum seekers continue to wait for long periods in areas where they do not have jobs or networks of support, lengthening periods of uncertainty and exacerbating physical and psychosocial risks.

The (dis)advantages of CBP One: what can we learn?

One of the main advantages of CBP One is that it speeds up the administrative process for the US authorities. It enables them to monitor people, systematically obtain information and limit the number of people who get into the US. Although the app has some advantages, the benefits are for the authorities and not for those who need protection.

Migrant rights organisations have repeatedly reported that the app stands for the violation of the right to asylum, it diverts resources on phones and phone credit, and it has numerous technical flaws. The app is only available in English, Spanish and Haitian Creole. This has caused problems, especially for indigenous communities, who speak other languages, and for those who do not know how to read – most of them being women. In family groups, the app tends to be controlled by men. This exacerbates the subordination of women and perpetuates unequal power relations.

CBP One was designed to support the reduction of people smuggling and organised crime. However, the app encourages fraud and illegal trade. Many migrants are paying for people to help them use the CBP One app or to register people outside northern and central Mexico through the app via a Virtual Private Network (VPN). CBP One promotes digital crime and strengthens a digital economy of migration control imposed from above and perpetuated from below.

The use of this technology amplifies waiting periods, produces forced immobility and results in the saturation of shelters in Mexico. Migrant shelters and organisations meet only some of the migrants’ and asylum seekers’ needs. Nicole and Ale waited a year in the south, centre and north of Mexico. In Tijuana, Nicole told me “I am still in the shelter. The app hasn’t given me an appointment… The internet connection is unstable in the shelter because everyone is applying for the appointment.”

Civil society and other organisations that support refugees and other migrants mainly provide shelter (or lodging) and food, some provide internet access, psychosocial support, legal advice, information, education and transport. Organisations take on the work that arises from restrictive and changing policies. Although the work of these organisations is fundamental to the survival of migrants, their work is limited to short-term solutions.

The experience of CBP One shows that digital technologies have the potential to enhance migration processes, but they also cause harm by hindering access to international protection. I offer a set of recommendations:

• Short-term
  1. CBP should correct the technical flaws with the app.
  2. The app should include other languages, especially indigenous languages.
  3. CBP should integrate visual user-friendly strategies for those who do not know how to read.
  4. CBP should develop, update and share informative material about the app and problem solving.
  5. The asylum ban rule in the US should be terminated.
  6. Gender-sensitive programming is critical to reduce gender-diverse migrants’ vulnerabilities as they wait in Mexico. Work programmes for gender-diverse people can help them expand their livelihood opportunities and avoid engaging in sex-work as the only available option.

• Medium-term
  1. CBP should remove the requirement to have an appointment at a port of entry and offer solutions within the US territory.
  2. Canada should be involved in the relocation and assistance processes. For thousands of migrants the destination is Canada.

The implementation of these recommendations is insufficient if the US-Mexico migration-asylum policy stays the same. The political rhetoric in both countries is that of investing in humanitarian and development programmes, yet the investment goes into border protection. As de Haas points out, global migration is not at an all-time high and border restrictions produce more migration. It is important to invest in programmes that promote mobility as being a real option and not as the only alternative.

“Nobody wants to migrate from their country and leave their people, it is out of necessity” Gabriela, Salvadorian refugee, 29 years old.

 

 

Abril Ríos-Rivera

DPhil candidate, Centre on Migration Policy and Society, University of Oxford

Abril.riosrivera@compas.ox.ac.uk  linkedin.com/in/abrilrios/

READ THE FULL ISSUE

[i] Quotes are taken from interviews the author conducted, pseudonyms have been used.