ArticleJournal of immigrant and minority health2026
Predictors of Asylum Approval: Insights from a Decade of Forensic Medical Evaluations at a Student-Run Clinic.
Article in Journal of immigrant and minority health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asylum seekers face significant challenges in substantiating their claims of trauma and persecution. Forensic medical evaluations (FMEs) support these claims and improve case outcomes. This study investigates which demographic, traumatic, and medical factors predict asylum approval within a student-run asylum clinic. We performed a retrospective study of clinic FMEs (2014–2024). Of 289 completed evaluations, 154 cases with known outcomes were analyzed. The outcome variable was asylum granted (1) vs. not granted (0). 29 binary predictors (10 demographic, 10 trauma, 9 medical) were abstracted from affidavits. We conducted univariate and multivariable logistic regressions. Results were compared with national data from Physicians for Human Rights. 57.1% cases were granted asylum, exceeding the national average of 39.3%. In univariate analyses, higher approval odds were observed with lacerations (OR = 9.30), scars (OR = 3.51), burns (OR = 7.66), any psychiatric diagnosis (OR = 2.81), PTSD (OR = 5.40), depression (OR = 4.22), kidnapping (OR = 12.0), torture (OR = 3.56), having a reported income (OR = 3.24), having children (OR = 1.97), and having a physical (OR = 3.11) and psychological (OR = 4.34) FME conducted (p < 0.05). Gait abnormality was inversely associated (OR = 0.30). In the multivariable model, PTSD (aOR = 6.67), kidnapping (aOR = 12.5), lacerations (aOR = 5.97), and income (aOR = 2.86) remained associated with approval. A decade of data from a student-run asylum clinic confirmed the importance of FMEs. Findings suggest the medical content of FMEs, especially clear, well-documented injuries that match the client’s narrative and select trauma exposures (e.g., kidnapping), carries strong evidentiary weight, while demographic indicators (income) may also play a role. Results support maintaining capacity for both physical and psychological FMEs and funding for student-run clinics. Larger multi-site studies are needed to validate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41649694What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.