My research calls for a bottom-up study of the relationship between noncitizens and the state, and as such, draws attention to the claims, everyday practices, and lived experiences that shape how state power is negotiated, contested, and reproduced at the margins of formal citizenship. In doing so, my work takes the claims and experiences of injustice of my interlocutors as starting points to theorize the desirability of ethical principles we have dismissed or overlooked.
Book Project
Titled Playing the Asylum Game, my book project proposes a practice-based exploration of asylum to examine the norms and institutions we use to identify and protect those seeking safety, establishing normative principles for a fairer asylum system. I show that asylum law dominates noncitizens in an objectionable way when it does not satisfy rule-of-law and procedural justice requirements, thereby subjecting asylum seekers to arbitrary power. This argument about the importance of procedural justice comes from asylum seekers themselves, who often experienced immigration law as a cruel, lottery-like game with unclear rules. By interpreting their claims, I theorize the rule of law as requiring the following conditions: predictability and reliability, publicity and equal access, and due process.
To generate these insights, I rely on my fieldwork of the United States asylum system. Between February 2023 and February 2026, I conducted participant observation in immigration courts and at the U.S.-Mexico border, and over 140 interviews with asylum seekers, lawyers, state agents, and other key actors.
This redescription also gives rise to two important theoretical points. First, it allows us to explore claim-making amid the normative and juridical environment of asylum, envisioning which forms of agency are empowering and arguing how and why the state should promote them. Second, I ask what state actors owe to noncitizens, and what principles should govern their action.
Peer-Reviewed Publications
Forthcoming. “The Asymmetric Effects of Migration Policy Change” (with Adam Cox, David Hausman, and Mary Hoopes), Journal of Legal Analysis
There is evidence that restrictive policy displaces migration, but much less evidence that policy deters migration. Displacement without deterrence presents a puzzle that we explore in this article. We draw on interviews with ninety-five migrants and staff in shelters to help explain why migrants change their behavior more in response to welcoming border policy changes than to new restrictions. First, push factors lead migrants to discount negative information but not positive information, which can influence how they enter. Second, negative information is less credible and available than positive information. Third, unpredictable government decision-making at the border makes negative news seem uncertain. And finally, as migrants learn more about border restrictions during their long journey, turning back becomes progressively more costly.
OnlineFirst. “Grounding the Diasporic Turn in Political Theory” (with Kai Yui Samuel Chan), American Journal of Political Science
Diasporas remain understudied in political theory. To ground a robust engagement with diasporas, in this article, we offer a non-statist framework of political community. This framework is needed as diasporas are transnational groups that share overlapping webs of narratives and practices but lack institutional and ideological unity. Tracking these features, we posit that individuals constitute a diasporic community by sharing a joint meta-commitment, which is expressed through practices and narratives. Through these expressions, diasporic members commit to acting as part of the same community without any necessary or further substantial agreements. This meta-commitment grounds, minimally, an obligation of answerability: diasporic members owe to each other an answer as to how their choices relate to the future of the diaspora.
2026. “Allocating Time in Asylum Systems: A Dilemma Between Efficacy and Equal Treatment,” Comparative Migration Studies
The right to seek asylum is meant to offer protection to those suffering from persecution. Currently, numerous countries face severe delays in granting and adjudicating this right. This paper theorizes from the US asylum system, where a backlog of over 2.2 million cases poses the following dilemma: ensure an equal and fair process for asylum seekers, despite it likely leading to waiting periods that can reach several years, or implement efficiency policies to offer protection to the largest number of refugees possible, even when practitioners have deemed them a violation of asylum seekers’ equal rights to fair proceedings. Using insights gathered in in-depth interviews and participant observation, this paper explores this dilemma between efficacy and equal treatment and analyzes the moral costs of opting for one over the other. Even though this dilemma cannot be fully resolved, I offer pathways to mitigate it, with a focus on need-based and social membership considerations.
Second Project
My second project will investigate the process from asylum to citizenship, focusing on how asylees—noncitizens with legal status—make membership claims on the state. Drawing on the experiences of individuals who have recently secured asylum, I examine how past persecution shapes the ongoing responsibilities of the state. I will compare the trajectories of asylees with those who receive protection under the Convention Against Torture or withholding of removal. These latter forms of relief satisfy the principle of non-refoulement—ensuring individuals are not returned to danger—yet provide no pathway to citizenship. The project examines the state’s obligations toward those it has already recognized as needing protection, while evaluating the promises and perils of citizenship status.
Work in Progress
“Managing Time: Speeding Up and Slowing Down the Asylum Clock,” under review
“Asylum Law: Domination or Government?” draft
“Freedom of Movement Beyond Borders: Asylum in the Jus Gentium,” draft