Chapter 2 Transit and trajectory through Mexico: navigating risk and finding protection

Factors that contribute to determining destination or making asylum claims

The majority of factors in determining destination were related to the cultural, social or practical factors that influence migration patterns in the broader sense. Some of these were related to the pull factors that influence regional migration, such as economic opportunities or family reunification. Others related to the broader historical context of migration in the region, such as the cultural traditions of northward migration to the USA and the perception of Mexico as a transit state within this trajectory.

About a third of the interviewees who had left their country for reasons that could form the basis of a claim for international protection were in the process of claiming, or about to file a claim, for asylum in Mexico. All but one of this group had initially planned to travel to the USA but had changed their destination and/or plan during transit after receiving information while in Mexico about human rights and the right to seek asylum.¹ There were two distinct groups within the two-thirds of those who were not claiming asylum in Mexico. Firstly, there were those continuing to the USA, where some intended to claim asylum. Secondly, there were those staying in Mexico on a humanitarian visa,² some of whom believed they could claim asylum in Mexico at a later point.

Many of those who had fled criminal violence and persecution perceived themselves as migrants before they were informed of the right to apply for refugee status by agencies or civil society in Mexico. This was reflected in the overwhelming majority of respondents (74%) who stated that their planned destination when they left their country had been the USA. The absence of social networks within Mexico appeared to deter some people from claiming asylum there. Two-thirds of people who had fled criminal violence in Northern Central America said that social networks or family connections had influenced their initial choice of destination (twenty-seven had connections in the USA and eleven in Mexico). Some of these people had decided to change their destination when they learnt about the right to seek asylum in Mexico, but most of those with strong social capital had not. These people named social networks and family contacts in the USA as their reasons for continuing to their original destination, and this was particularly pertinent if they had previously lived in the USA or had immediate family there.

Despite recognising that they could have a valid claim for asylum, some people chose to apply for the humanitarian visa either to regularise their stay in Mexico or to facilitate a safe onward journey through Mexico to the USA. For those who decided to remain in Mexico, this decision was influenced chiefly by the understanding that they were unable to apply for asylum and a humanitarian visa concurrently, meaning that applicants had to choose between one or the other.³ Thus, even when people do receive information about international protection, many choose not to file claims in Mexico, despite acknowledging their potential eligibility.

Further to this, some said they did not perceive Mexico as a safe and secure destination for those fleeing criminal violence, because it has many of the same security issues as Northern Central America and because the gangs and cartels have transnational reach across the region. A Salvadoran adolescent who was fleeing death threats from gangs told me that the reach of gangs extends throughout the region so there was “no point” in applying for protection in Mexico. Therefore, Mexico may not be thought of as a secure destination for those fleeing criminal violence.

Rights information, decision-making and trajectory: morphogenetic analysis

Twenty-seven of the fifty Albergue residents interviewed said that criminal violence was the primary reason for leaving their country, twenty-two of whom left because of individually targeted persecution by criminal groups, reporting situations that could form the basis for a claim for international protection. Of this group, 41% changed their intended destination during transit, 36% decided to continue on to their planned destination and 14% decided to temporarily change their destination. About a third of all the people who had fled death threats or forced recruitment into gangs decided to claim asylum in Mexico, changing their migration plans after being informed of this right during transit. Of those who were not making a claim for asylum in Mexico, half had relocated internally prior to migrating externally and the rest had not. All but one of these had initially planned to travel to the USA and had changed their destination during transit after receiving information on human rights. Only one person – a 37-year-old man from Guatemala – said that their reason for going to Mexico was to seek protection and claim asylum, having fled political persecution as well as gang violence.

There was scant prior awareness among my interviewees of the right to seek asylum or the fact that it could apply to their circumstances. Their countries of origin are categorised as having low human rights standards and endemic human rights abuse, and their reasons for migrating were linked to the situation of insecurity in their countries and the persistent failure on the part of the state to respect and uphold their rights. This, together with the perception that you lose all rights if you cross an international border in undocumented manner, “adversely affects their expectation of respect for their human rights”.⁴ Experts I spoke with also highlighted that there tended to be a perception at the time that they were not refugees and that asylum did not apply to their situation, but only to those facing political persecution.

Among the migrants that I interviewed, those who did have knowledge of international protection and the right to seek asylum had received this information at the migrant shelters during transit or in migration detention on a previous journey that had resulted in their deportation. All the people staying at the Albergue were informed of the right to apply for asylum during their registration interview. Many expressed some surprise that their situations could entitle them to apply for international protection and, indeed, that such protection even existed. A 34-year-old trans woman from El Salvador told me: “I never knew we had a right to be safe”.

This analysis focuses on people whose reasons for leaving their country indicated potential international protection needs and who had been informed of the right to seek asylum during transit through Mexico. It looks at people’s decision-making in these cases, analysing what impact receiving this information had on their migration trajectory, indicated by whether they decided to stay in Mexico either temporarily or permanently, whether they decided to claim asylum, or whether they decided to continue with their initial plan. In each situation, it evaluates the importance of additional pull factors and practical obstacles in their decision-making, enabling a better understanding of the circumstances in which access to rights information influences the decisions of those fleeing persecution from criminal actors.

How receiving rights information during transit affects migration trajectory

My data presented no evidence that the right to international protection had (at this time) acted as an influence on people’s decision to migrate externally when they were fleeing organised crime and criminal violence. There was little knowledge of applicable rights prior to arriving at migrant shelters where they had been given this information. Certainly, there was no indication that people had fled criminal violence in their country in order to seek asylum or that the right to claim asylum had influenced people’s decision to migrate externally; in general, respondents had been unaware of this right or how it may apply to their circumstances. People were fleeing from a place of danger rather than towards one that could offer legal protection or social benefits. What motivated them were the push factors of insecurity and the failure of their states to protect them.

Receiving information about the right to international protection during transit does affect some people’s planned migration trajectory. However not all people who may be entitled to claim asylum do so when they are informed of this right. People with potential international protection needs who did not have social capital in the intended destination country were more likely to change their plans and apply for asylum in Mexico when they learned of this right during transit, displaying greater flexibility in decision-making.

Social capital in the intended destination appeared to be the strongest factor in people’s decision not to change their plans, whereas the rules and potential outcomes of the asylum claim process appeared to be the strongest deterrent against application. In other words, those with family or friends in a specific destination city were less likely to change their plans while in transit, demonstrating that social capital was more important to some people than securing international protection in Mexico where they did not have social capital. Social capital is leveraged to access economic opportunities as well as for social means, making it a strong pull factor, especially within the broader historical context of migration out of Northern Central America to the USA. Most respondents with social capital in the USA planned to use the humanitarian visa to regularise their journey through Mexico, although some demonstrated flexibility in their timings, deciding to regularise their status in Mexico and to stay for longer than initially planned before continuing to their original destination.

Economic opportunities in the intended destination country were also a factor in decision-making about whether to apply for asylum. This was especially so because asylum-seekers were not able to work or live independently in Mexico during the asylum application process. In practice, people were prevented from applying for the humanitarian visa and asylum concurrently, and this led to many opting for the humanitarian visa because it had a quicker and more guaranteed outcome, rather than because it offered them lasting and appropriate protection. The length of time taken for the humanitarian visa to be issued meant that they would subsequently be ineligible to apply for asylum, so in effect this denied people’s right to apply for asylum and enjoy international protection. Whereas other factors that influence destination and deter people from staying and seeking protection in Mexico are primarily social and economic in nature, this is a practical barrier to protection that could be removed by bringing practice in line with the legal provision under Mexico’s Migration Law.

All factors appeared to have a similar effect on the decision-making of those at immediate risk and those at imminent risk. That is to say, information about asylum and the application process did not have a significantly greater or lesser effect on those who had fled immediate risk or an actual attack, than on those who had fled imminent risk. However, those who had fled internally prior to leaving their country appeared to be more flexible in their decision-making during transit than those who had not attempted internal relocation, being more likely to change their destination and/or apply for asylum. Linking decisions taken during transit with those taken at initial mobility showed how decision-making is more flexible for those who took emergency flight from immediate risk and how agency is exercised as people respond to new opportunities to regularise their migratory status or apply for international protection.

During transit, the receipt of information about rights can influence the decision-making and plans of those people who may have some degree of international protection needs. Although this would not affect their decision to remain outside their country of origin, it had some influence on their choice of destination and their options for regularising their status. Nonetheless, other factors are highly relevant to decision-making at this point, including social capital in the planned destination, economic opportunities, fear of maras within Mexico, and concerns about the timing and outcome of the asylum process.

Social capital in a specific destination appeared to be the critical factor in determining destination, and this was only – but not always – deviated from when a more robust and regularised settlement was available in Mexico, which had previously been considered a country of transit rather than destination. However, as seen by the comment of one interviewee, having information about the right to international protection while in the country of origin could influence the decision to move externally rather than internally, potentially prompting external migration with the explicit intention of claiming asylum.

Migrant experiences in southern Mexico, 2015

People who worked at the Albergue in Ixtepec and with migrants in southern Mexico reported that there had been significant changes in terms of the pattern and volume of crime against migrants in the region after the implementation of Plan Frontera Sur (the Southern Border Plan) and new in-country migration controls (see Chapter 1). This had led to a marked difference in the length of time people stayed at the Albergue and the services that it now needed to provide. During the period 2011–14, violence against migrants in the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca was very low, with just a handful of reported incidents. The implementation of Plan Frontera Sur in August 2014 provoked abrupt changes in the number of and the needs of migrants arriving at the Albergue.⁵

Staff at the Albergue explained that previously, migrants had stayed for a few hours or a couple of days for rest and food. After the implementation of Plan Frontera Sur, however, they needed to stay for longer and had more complex needs. Staff described how what had been a migrant shelter became a refugee camp, putting pressure on infrastructure and services. As well as additional medical needs resulting from people having to walk vast distances, now every person arriving at the Albergue had been the victim of a criminal attack while in southern Mexico. This meant that meeting their needs became much more challenging from practical, legal and psychological perspectives. People needed to stay at the Albergue for several weeks to report crimes and apply for a humanitarian visa or for up to seven months to make an asylum claim. They arrived at the Albergue with different psychological challenges, including stress and depression. There was also danger in and around the Albergue because of the presence of maras in the close vicinity and along the route of the train, which runs alongside it, and that, according to staff, was still under mara control.

During the time of my fieldwork, the majority of the people staying at the Albergue (70%) were waiting for the humanitarian visa that is available to migrants who had been the victim of, or witness to, a serious crime while in Mexico.⁶ Some people with potential international protection needs chose to apply for this humanitarian visa instead of asylum, while others were applying for this visa either to regularise their stay and remain in Mexico or to enable them to continue their journey through Mexico in a regular manner, before attempting to cross the US border.

Prior knowledge of risk during transit

To contextualise the experience of violence and crime during transit, we first need to understand what people knew about the threats before they started their journey, and how this knowledge factored into their decision to leave their country. Respondents at both the Returns Centre and the Albergue expressed different levels of knowledge about the nature of risk and the potential perpetrators of risk, violence and abuse they might encounter during transit. Just 17% said that they knew nothing of the risks of the journey before they left their country. While a few people did not mention any specific risk, 71% (forty-one people) expressed some degree of knowledge of the indirect violence of the journey (environmental factors and injuries or death), of the threat from state actors (including apprehension and extortion) and of direct violence or criminal attacks that happen during transit. Answering unprompted, all forty-one mentioned the threat of some type of criminal attack, citing assault (73%), kidnap (49%), murder (44%), robbery (32%), rape (29%), extortion (12%) and people-trafficking (7%); some 15% mentioned Mexican cartels or the Zetas as a specific threat during transit.

Those who had some knowledge of the risks before leaving their country had gleaned this information from a variety of sources, with many mentioning multiple sources. Of this group, 72% had received information from friends or family, 34% from TV, radio and newspapers, 10% from the internet, 24% from other people who had migrated, and 17% had drawn on their own previous experiences of migration. People from Honduras were more likely to have received information about the journey from TV, with half of them saying that they had learned about the risks from news and public information programmes.⁷ A Honduran man explained that local information programmes on TV “tell us you have to pay $100 to get on train or gangs will take you”. Another explained that gathering information prior to leaving his country had been a core part of proactive planning: “I went on the internet to get all information before we left”.

Some people expressed differences between their expectations prior to travelling and their actual experiences. People who were travelling for the first time and had no knowledge of the dangers they might encounter in transit expressed surprise at the difficulties they had experienced: “We had little idea of what it’s like because it’s the first time”; “I thought it would be quieter than it was”. Those with some knowledge also expressed surprise at the severity of the situation in reality. A young Honduran man told me: “Realistically I did not expect this. I thought there would be some gangs, but I did not expect the problems with migra (slang for migration officers) and so much walking”. Notably, even people who had previously migrated through Mexico expressed similar surprise at their actual experiences, compared with their expectations and previous experience. Many related that it was much more dangerous than it had been before, and that this was due both to the arduous nature of the journey itself and to criminal activity; both of these factors were heightened by the migration controls that meant that migrants were unable to use public transport and had to take marginalised and isolated routes. They told me: “It was not like this before. I didn’t know how dangerous it had become or that I’d have to walk so far”; “Now it’s more dangerous. There was not so much crime before”; “Mexico is really hard now – lots of migra, loads of criminals, loads of kidnappings, maras”; “There were always robberies and attacks before, but very little. This has really increased this year”. Thus, the situation in southern Mexico in 2015 was more extreme and dangerous than people anticipated, even when they had prior knowledge of the risks or first-hand experience of previous migration.

Regardless of any known risk, all interviewees had left their countries, meaning the agency of people who had good awareness of the dangers posed by criminal actors was not completely constrained by this risk. A 20-year-old Salvadoran, who I interviewed at the Returns Centre after he had been deported, told me: “I knew the risks but ignored them”. Some of the people fleeing criminal violence who were aware of the dangers during transit expressed this more starkly, with one man from Honduras explaining: “I knew all this, but it didn’t matter as I was running for my life”. This shows an overwhelming imperative to abandon their country despite known risks. There did not appear to be any clear distinction between the prior knowledge and decision-making of those who were fleeing criminal violence and those who were migrating for other reasons.

Criminal attacks during transit

The overwhelming majority – some 84% – of people interviewed at the Albergue had been the victim of a serious crime during transit. When limited to those from Northern Central America who had crossed the land border between Guatemala and Mexico, this figure rose to 88%. Of the forty-two people who had suffered an attack on this migration journey, six people had been the victim of more than one attack during their transit through Mexico. All but two people reported that they had been victims of armed robbery and over a third had also been victims of physical assault. Other reported crimes ranged in severity from express kidnap to gang rape to attempted murder. The attacks were conducted by groups armed with firearms and machetes, and demonstrated premeditated, targeted and systematic activity with a specific modus operandi.

Many people I interviewed at the Albergue described or showed serious wounds that had been inflicted during the attacks, many of which had warranted medical attention – although this had not always been received. Injuries included sprained limbs, deep bruising, crushed feet that required surgery, permanent scarring from being beaten, and machete wounds to the shoulder and head. The most severe attack related during interviews was the attempted murder of a 35-year-old Honduran man. After witnessing the gang rape of a young Guatemalan woman on top of the train known as La Bestia (the Beast), he had been violently beaten and thrown from the train by the gang. State officials found him unconscious, and he spent three days in emergency care. He related to me that he still bore deep psychological scars from his experience during transit. These were compounded by his experiences in Honduras – from where he had fled death threats from criminal gangs – and by his previous deportation from the USA, where he had lived and where his wife and children remained.

The descriptions of the incidents presented a clear picture of systematic attacks on migrants travelling through southern Mexico, perpetrated by small groups of assailants who operated at all times of day and night. Most respondents said that the attackers had been lying in wait for them, either along the train tracks as they walked or in the places where they took diversions away from the road or rail to avoid migration checkpoints. They described how: “They were hidden, waiting for us”; “The men came out from hiding”; “They were lying in wait in the undergrowth”. A few who had managed to get onto the trains described gangs boarding to hold and extort them in a type of kidnap. Another reported that a minibus driver had driven them to an express kidnap, where they were detained and held for ransom. All respondents reported that they had been robbed of their money and possessions, and many said that they had been forced to take off their clothes and lie naked on the ground. Sometimes this was so that clothing and shoes could be checked for hidden money, and sometimes the assailants stole their clothes and shoes, leaving victims naked after the attack.

Nearly all respondents said small gangs of criminals had perpetrated the attacks against them, with some describing larger, more organised and more violent groups and others describing what appeared to be either common criminals or campesinos (peasants/rural workers). Some distinction was noted between descriptions of attacks on the route north from Tapachula and those on the route from Tenosique, with the latter being much more violent and involving larger groups of both assailants and victims. Some respondents believed their attacks had been perpetrated by maras; a 24-year-old Guatemalan man who had fled gang persecution reported being “assaulted on train tracks by Mara Salvatrucha … there were two MS with guns and machetes”. All reports indicated that these attacks were systematic, premeditated and targeted specifically at migrants in transit.

Decision-making following criminal attacks

Ethnographic observations at the Albergue allowed me to witness migrants’ decision-making in progress. People who had just arrived weighed up their options, often taking a few days to decide whether to apply and wait for a visa or whether to continue on their journey straight away. Many people who reported such attacks were considering applying for the humanitarian visa, which was seen as a way of regularising either a stay in Mexico or their onward journey.

Of those applying for the humanitarian visa, 31% planned to continue to the USA as soon as they received the visa rather than remain in Mexico to assist with investigations and criminal proceedings. Others planned to remain in Mexico either temporarily (23%) or for a longer period of time (45%), for reasons connected to work, family or an unwillingness to return to danger in their country of origin. Only one person – a 45-year-old man from El Salvador – said that they had reported their attack for the purpose of a criminal investigation and prevention: “I didn’t want the same thing to happen to other people”.⁸ The decisions of those whose reasons for migrating were not related to criminal violence were split more or less evenly across these three options. However, those whose flight indicated potential international protection needs but who had chosen not to apply for asylum were far more likely to decide to stay in Mexico with the humanitarian visa for the near future, with over half deciding to do this.

People’s decision-making considered additional pull factors such as social capital in a specific destination and economic opportunities in the USA. The primary influence of a specific destination was found to be social capital. Those who had strong social capital in a specific destination (that is, a named city), and had left their country for family reunification or work, were least likely to change their migration plans. People without social capital in a specific destination or who had no particular destination in mind demonstrated more flexibility in their decision-making, and were more likely to change their migration plans, either temporarily or for the foreseeable future. Those whose reasons for leaving their country indicated potential international protection needs were most likely to change their planned destination, although social capital was also important for them. People applying for a humanitarian visa when they may have had a potential asylum case, or when they were fully aware of their international protection needs, said that they thought it was a quicker and more guaranteed route to regularisation.

Decision-making of those who had fled criminal violence and persecution

For those people who had left their country for reasons that indicated potential international needs, security and stability were key priorities. This is demonstrated in their decision-making over whether to apply for asylum or a humanitarian visa. Several respondents indicated that, after weighing up the practicalities, they felt the process of applying for asylum did not offer them the same guarantee of success as the humanitarian visa. Others expressed concerns about the lengthy asylum application process, during which they would be unable to work, and the low approval rate compared to that of the humanitarian visa. They said that the humanitarian visa could provide a quicker and more guaranteed way than applying for asylum to regularise their migratory status in Mexico.¹⁰

Some of those who had fled criminal violence or persecution said that they would use the humanitarian visa to either work in Mexico or to continue safely to the USA, as was the case with those who were migrating for other reasons. Those who were planning to continue to the USA explained that having a visa would offer them protection during transit: “It’s better with the visa, safer”; “I will use the visa to get to border safely in a bus”; “It is very dangerous at the moment, so I am thinking of the humanitarian visa because it will allow me to travel safely. The route is so dangerous now because of kidnappings and constant danger.” Acquiring a humanitarian visa was a pragmatic strategy to protect themselves from further risk of assault or violent abuse from both state and non-state actors in Mexico. However, they also regarded the humanitarian visa as a means to protect themselves from the risk of danger presented by non-state actors, should they be deported to their country of origin.

How criminal abuse during transit affects migrant agency

The people interviewed at the Albergue were travelling without a people-smuggler and were, therefore, extremely vulnerable to attacks by organised criminal groups during transit (see Chapters 3 and 4). People had different levels of knowledge about the threat from organised crime prior to leaving their country, but this did not constrain their agency to such a degree that they decided not to leave their country. However, agency is enabled by opportunities that are sometimes presented after a serious crime during transit, when people learn about their rights and may then take advantage of the opportunity to regularise their migratory status. People who decided to wait at the Albergue for this visa expressed the benefits of regularisation in terms of gaining rights and mitigating risk, and they balanced these benefits with the push and pull factors that had driven their initial migration. This applied equally to those whose reasons for leaving their country indicated some degree of potential international protection needs, although some of this group decided to apply for a humanitarian visa instead of asylum and were additionally using it to protect against deportation to a situation of risk in their country of origin. Thus, the visa was seen as a strategy for self-protection from both state actors and criminal actors.

Just as those who altered their migration plans after receiving information about international protection while in transit evaluated the available options and changed their plans, so too did people who had been the victim of a crime and subsequently received information about the right to claim a humanitarian visa. This was particularly apparent when people had suffered multiple incidents, with people proceeding from the area of immediate risk of attack – including the risk of violent reprisals from criminal gangs if they reported crimes – until they came to a place of safety where they received information about how to file reports and their right to apply for the humanitarian visa and support during the application processes. The criminal attack was not in itself the decisive factor but, rather, it led to accessing information about their rights and the civil society support that enabled them to file applications, which then factored into their decision-making. Although agency has typically been framed as being constrained by risk during transit, this analysis shows how migrants respond to unexpected opportunities and how subsequent decisions shape the transit trajectory and ongoing mobility.