going home: return and reintegration for vulnerable migrants

Going Home: Return and Reintegration for Vulnerable Migrants

1Going Home: Return and Reintegration for Vulnerable Migrants

International Organization for Migration

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the migrants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM and the interviewed migrants do not accept any liability for any loss or damage which may arise from the reliance on information contained in this publication. All migrants featured in this booklet have given their consent for the publication. When requested, fictitious names have been used to protect their privacy. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well‐being of migrants. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Publisher: International Organization for Migration Skippergata 33 0154 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 53 20 E‐mail: [email protected] Internet: www.iom.no

© 2014 International Organization for Migration (IOM) http://www.iom.no



Acknowledgements

IOM Norway expresses its deepest gratitude to the migrants who contributed to

this report. Their experiences with the return and reintegration process are

essential for IOM to continue to develop and improve the assistance provided to

vulnerable migrants who return to their countries of origin. IOM Norway would

furthermore like to thank the staff at IOM offices in countries of origin who

conducted the monitoring on our behalf. Lastly, IOM Norway expresses its

gratitude to the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) for the funding for

the report and the return and reintegration project for vulnerable migrants.



Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 5

THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MIGRATION (IOM) .......................... 6

THE VULNERABLE GROUPS PROJECT ............................................................... 7

REINTEGRATION ASSISTANCE FOR VULNERABLE MIGRANTS .............................................. 8

MIGRANT EXPERIENCES WITH RETURN AND REINTEGRATION ...................... 10

SITUATION IN NORWAY PRIOR TO RETURN ................................................................. 12

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REINTEGRATION IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN .................................... 12

UNACCOMPANIED MINORS ..................................................................................... 13

AGED‐OUT MINORS .............................................................................................. 15

VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ........................................................................................ 16

MIGRANTS WITH MEDICAL NEEDS ............................................................................ 16

OTHER VULNERABLE MIGRANTS ............................................................................... 17

OVERALL RETURN EXPERIENCES ............................................................................... 18

IOM’S RETURN AND REINTEGRATION ASSISTANCE ....................................................... 23

STORIES OF RETURN .................................................................................... 25

IBRAHIM FROM BENIN ............................................................................................ 26

ESMERALDA FROM ALBANIA .................................................................................... 27

FLORENTIN FROM ALBANIA ..................................................................................... 28

XENIA FROM CHILE ................................................................................................ 29

ARTAN FROM KOSOVO ........................................................................................... 30

ASO AND SARA FROM IRAQ ..................................................................................... 31

AYMAR FROM BURUNDI ......................................................................................... 32

LINA AND LIUBOV FROM UKRAINE ............................................................................ 33

ATIQ FROM BANGLADESH ....................................................................................... 34

AHMED FROM TUNISIA ........................................................................................... 35

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 36



Introduction

The decision to return home is challenging. Many things may have changed at

home since leaving, and for most migrants return is not the preferred option.

Migrants in all life situations are faced with the difficult decision of whether to

return home voluntarily. Many migrants have specific needs in the return and

reintegration process, and therefore need individually‐tailored support to be

able to re‐establish a life at home. In order to support migrants in particularly

vulnerable situations, IOM Norway has a separate project for the return and

reintegration of vulnerable migrants. Vulnerable migrants may be children who

came to Norway without their parents, women or men who have been victims

of violence, exploitation or trafficking, migrants with medical needs or elderly

migrants who have no family to support them in country of origin.

This report aims to shed light on the return and reintegration process of

migrants who returned with the Vulnerable Groups Project. It presents their

experiences and illustrates both the opportunities and challenges involved in

the reintegration process. The report discusses migrants’ economic and social

reintegration, as well as the experiences of migrants concerning the

reintegration assistance provided by IOM through the Vulnerable Groups

Project. By presenting a nuanced and realistic picture of migrants’ experiences,

IOM aims to contribute to a better understanding of the return process for

vulnerable migrants.

The large majority of the vulnerable migrants who shared their experiences for

this report were glad they made the decision to return home. Almost all minors

continued their education upon return and most adult migrants either started a

business or engaged in other income‐generating activities. However, this does

not imply that the reintegration process was without challenges. Most of the

migrants are still facing financial difficulties and many found it hard to re‐adapt

to their local communities. The support of family has been essential for most of

migrants in the return progress. Furthermore, the reintegration support

provided by IOM has been crucial in order to re‐establish a new life at home.

However, there is still room for improving the assistance provided. This will be

discussed in the recommendations part at the end of the report.



The International Organization of Migration (IOM)

IOM is the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration and

was established in 1951. At present, IOM has 157 member states and offices in

more than 140 countries with 8,400 staff members employed worldwide. IOM

globally is involved in a broad range of migration‐related areas such as

humanitarian emergencies, resettlement assistance, migration health, assisted

voluntary return and reintegration, counter‐trafficking, labour migration and

migration and development. Norway has been a member of IOM since 1951,

and IOM Norway was established in 2002 upon the request of the Norwegian

Government. Presently, IOM Norway runs a programme for Voluntary Assisted

Return for asylum seekers and irregular migrants and a Cultural Orientation

Programme for quota refugees who are accepted for resettlement in Norway.

Since 2006, IOM has initiated a number of reintegration projects to support

migrants in the return process. Due to IOM’s large number of offices

worldwide, the organization is in a unique position to provide reintegration

support to migrants who return to their countries of origin. The Voluntary

Assisted Return Programme and the reintegration projects are financed by the

Norwegian Ministry of Justice and administered by the Norwegian Directorate

of Immigration (UDI).



The Vulnerable Groups Project

The Vulnerable Groups Project offers information, return and reintegration

assistance for vulnerable migrants in Norway. The project was initiated in mid‐

2012 to provide individually‐tailored support and reintegration assistance for

migrants in particularly vulnerable situations.1 The Vulnerable Groups Project

assists victims of trafficking, unaccompanied minors, aged‐out minors, migrants

with medical needs and other migrants in particularly vulnerable situations. See

below for a more comprehensive overview.

Vulnerability Profiles in the Vulnerable Groups Project

Victims of trafficking: men, women and children exploited for labour and prostitution purposes or other forms of human trafficking.

Unaccompanied minors: children under the age of 18 who came to Norway without their parents or other appointed care persons.

Aged‐out minors: young adults between 18 and 23 years old who came to Norway as unaccompanied minors.

Migrants with medical needs: migrants with comprehensive medical needs upon return who need additional reintegration support to receive adequate medical treatment in country of origin.

Other vulnerable migrants: victims of violence, exploitation and abuse, victims of domestic violence, victims of forced marriage and elderly migrants without family network in home country. This category is not exhaustive and other migrants in highly vulnerable situations can be considered eligible for support under the project.

Vulnerability is highly context‐dependent. A person can be vulnerable in

country of origin before migrating, in transit, in destination country or upon

return in home country. In the Vulnerable Groups Project, the main emphasis is

on vulnerability upon return. Victims of trafficking and other victims of violence

or exploitation are particularly vulnerable due to their past experiences and the

__________________ 1 IOM Norway previously offered separate projects for unaccompanied minors and victims of

trafficking.



potential risk of being exploited or abused again in the future. Unaccompanied

minors and aged‐out minors are particularly vulnerable due to their young age.

Other migrants are particularly vulnerable because of specific conditions upon

return. As an example a migrant with medical needs will be particularly

vulnerable upon return without access to adequate health care in country of

origin. Another migrant with the same medical situation who returns to a

country with a strong health care system will be less vulnerable. Similarly, an

elderly migrant is more vulnerable if returning without any family network,

than if the person has family members in country of origin who can provide

support.

Reintegration Assistance for Vulnerable Migrants

All migrants who return with the Vulnerable Groups Project receive 7,800 USD

in reintegration support. The reintegration support is given to the migrant after

return and is administered by IOM in the country of origin in coordination with

IOM Norway. The aim of the reintegration support is to enhance the social and

economic reintegration process for the returnee. The reintegration support

aims to be as sustainable as possible by improving the person’s possibilities of

economic self‐sufficiency. Reintegration support is normally given over a time

period of twelve months and most of the support is given in‐kind (for payment

of services and goods) with the exception of a smaller cash amount. The in‐kind

support allows for the migrant to plan for the future and to focus on long‐term

objectives towards further education or creating an economic livelihood.

Furthermore, in‐kind reintegration support reduces the migrant’s vulnerability,

as large amounts of cash can make returnees more vulnerable upon return.



Reintegration Support for Vulnerable Migrants

Accommodation support (USD 1,500) to secure accommodation in the first period after return. The support can be used to cover rent, purchase materials for restructuring, restoration or renovation, and cover the cost of shelter/guesthouse/care centre or basic furniture and housing equipment.

Education, vocational training, business start‐up or employment support (USD 4,500) aims at enhancing migrants’ economic self‐sufficiency. The migrant decides on the preferred form of support according to skills, interests and their particular situation. The support can cover educational expenses, vocational training, business start‐up support or a work placement.

Medical support (USD 300) can be used for medical treatment, medicines, doctor/dentist appointments or counselling.

Subsistence allowance (USD 1,500) is for food, clothes, transport, hygienic products, replacement of lost identity documents and other immediate needs. The subsistence allowance is given in cash apart from for minors who receive the support as in‐kind support or cash administered by parents/responsible adult.

Vulnerable migrants are not one homogenous category, and the reintegration

assistance given to vulnerable migrants is adapted to their individual skills,

needs and situation. Prior to return, the migrant prepares a reintegration plan

for how to use the support in cooperation with IOM Norway and IOM in

country of origin. This process both mentally and practically prepares the

migrant for return and enables the person to take ownership of future plans.

Experience illustrates that many migrants make changes in the reintegration

plan once they have returned to their home country as local conditions may

have changed and they receive advice from family and friends in country of

origin. Migrants are encouraged to take their time with regards to future plans

in order to decide on the best way to make use of the reintegration support.



Migrant Experiences with Return and Reintegration

In the first 18 months of the Vulnerable Groups Project, 50 vulnerable migrants

returned with IOM. The situation of these migrants varied greatly in terms of

vulnerability profile, nationality, age and past experiences. See below overview

for the nationalities and profile of the vulnerable migrants who returned with

the project.

Vulnerable Migrants who Returned from 1 July 2012 ‐ 31 December 2013

Vulnerability Category

Number Country of Origin

Total Females

Total Males

Depen‐ dents

Victims of trafficking

12 Romania, Nigeria and Nepal

7 5 0

Unaccom‐panied minors

15 Iraq, Albania, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia, Kenya, Serbia, Kosovo and Ukraine

5 10

Aged‐out minors

3 Kosovo, Bosnia Herzegovina and Pakistan

2 1

Migrants with medical needs

8 Nepal, Serbia, Benin, China, Burundi, Bangladesh, Turkey and Uzbekistan

1 7

Other vulnerable migrants

12 Chile, Albania, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Guatemala and Colombia

6 0 6

Total 50 21 23 6



Twenty‐five out of the 50 vulnerable migrants who returned with the

Vulnerable Groups Project wanted to share their experiences with return and

reintegration for this report. Among the vulnerable migrants represented there

are:

13 unaccompanied minors

2 aged‐out minors

2 victims of trafficking

3 migrants with medical needs

5 other vulnerable migrants (2 of whom were the children of a vulnerable

migrant)

The migrants in the report are from the following countries; Iraq, Chile, Albania,

Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka, Benin, Burundi, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Tunisia,

Kenya, Romania, Nepal, Pakistan and Ukraine. Among the other migrants who

returned under the project, seven did not wish to share their experiences in the

report and another five had re‐emigrated at the time of monitoring. The

remaining 13 were unreachable when IOM attempted to contact them.

Due to the large diversity among the returnees and the limited number of

respondents, it is difficult to draw any general conclusions based on their

experiences. This is furthermore problematic by the fact that the returnees are

at different stages of the reintegration process. While some returned about two

years ago, others returned only six months prior to monitoring and are still

receiving reintegration support. Accounting for the limitations discussed, this

report nevertheless aims to present migrants’ experiences with return and

reintegration and shed light on the opportunities and challenges involved. The

nationalities of respondents are protected in the general discussion as there are

relatively few returnees from each country (often only one) and a number of

the individuals wished to remain completely anonymous. Ten ‘Stories of Return’

are also presented towards the end of the report in order to give an insight into

the experiences of individual returnees.



Situation in Norway Prior to Return

Most of the migrants had lived in Norway for one to five years prior to

returning. Five of the migrants had spent more than ten years in different

countries before coming to Norway, however most came directly to Norway.

Three minors from Kosovo and Albania had only been in Norway for about six

months by the time they returned. The reasons for coming to Norway were

diverse and the migrants expressed that there were a number of factors

interplaying in their decision. Most commonly the migrants cited family already

living in Norway, security and job opportunities as the most important reasons.

Other reasons were human rights, Norway being a rich country and the good

educational system. One of the migrants had not chosen to travel to Norway,

but had been assisted by a smuggler without knowing country of destination.

The migrants’ legal status in Norway prior to return varied, however the

majority had applied for asylum and had received a final rejection to their

asylum application. Among the migrants who did not apply for asylum in

Norway, two came on a tourist visa, one on a work visa and one was an

irregular migrant in Norway. All migrants explained that they would have stayed

in Norway if they could have legalized their stay. Consequently, the decision to

return home was largely motivated by not being able to stay in Norway. The

other main factor influencing their decision was the reintegration assistance

offered by IOM. Sixteen of the migrants specifically noted that the reintegration

assistance influenced their decision to return. Other influential factors were

family in home country, the difficulties of finding work in Norway, nostalgia

about home country, lack of access to social services, problems of integration,

fear of deportation and their financial situation in Norway. The various different

factors often interplayed in the decision to return.

Economic and Social Reintegration in Country of Origin

The primary intention of the reintegration assistance is to enhance economic

reintegration in country of origin, and thereby support a more sustainable

reintegration process. As part of the reintegration assistance under the

Vulnerable Groups Project, migrants can decide to start a business, undertake a

work placement, continue further education or undergo vocational training.



Among the 25 migrants:

13 are under education (at school or attending vocational education)

6 are small business owners, 1 is employed and 1 takes on irregular work

3 persons are not engaged in any work or study‐related activity (of which

1 is unemployed, 1 recently finished high school and 1 is elderly and does

not work)

Current Occupational Status Number of Migrants

Primary school 5

High school student 6

Training course/occupational training 3

Business owner 6

Irregular work/seasonal worker 1

Employee 1

Unemployed 22

Retired 1

Total 25

In addition to economic reintegration, social factors play an important role in

the reintegration process. Family and other social networks in country of origin,

the migrant’s ability to adapt to the social and cultural environment and the

specific situations returnees are faced with upon return all shape their

experiences. While some experiences with return and reintegration are

common among all vulnerable migrants, others are specific for the different

vulnerability categories and are therefore discussed separately. The following

sections discuss the experiences with regards to both economic and social

reintegration for the different categories of vulnerable migrants.

Unaccompanied Minors

Thirteen unaccompanied minors shared their experiences for the report. The

minors were between 7 and 17 years old at the time of return, however the

majority were 16 or 17 years old. All minors returned to live with their family

members. The majority live with both of their parents, five with their mother

__________________ 2 One recently finished high school and wishes to continue with further education.



and one minor lives with his uncle. Most of them are still at either primary or

secondary school or undertaking some form of training course or occupational

training. Two are no longer at school; one turned 18 after returning and has

since started a small business and the other dropped out of secondary

schooling, but plans to continue his studies in the future. Among the minors

who are still at school, most feel strengthened with regards to their future, but

still need time to complete their education. One minor expressed: “I need time

to be economically independent, I need more education.” Yet, some also worry

about future employment possibilities. One minor explained: “Seeing the high

number of unemployment in my country and the limited time of my

reintegration support, I do not feel comfortable and economically self‐sustained.

Firstly I should complete secondary school and then trainings.”

In general, the minors expressed that they were glad to be back with their

families and their parents played an important role both with regards to moral,

practical and financial support. One of the minors stated: “My parents

welcomed me and I have a very strong relationship with them.” Another

expressed that “my father stood by me in every decision.” However, the process

of being reunited with family was not without challenges for all. Two

experienced negative reactions from their parents upon return due to the

family’s financial problems, which made the process of re‐establishing daily life

with their families challenging.

As all the minors live with their families and most of them are still under

education, the aim of the reintegration support is primarily to enhance the

minors’ future possibilities. However, most of the minors’ families are in

relatively poor financial situations. While the reintegration support given to

minors is mainly intended to benefit the minor directly, it can also benefit the

family as a whole and thereby ease the financial difficulties of the family. Three

minors spent parts of the reintegration support towards a family business, and

the families thereby increased their income‐generating possibilities. As an

example, one of the minors explained that “now I can depend on our business

and all of us are benefiting from it, and our economic situation is not bad” and

another stated that “the family can now satisfy its needs with what it earns



from the business.” For the majority of the minors, most of the reintegration

support was spent on further education.

The housing support was generally used on improving housing conditions for

the whole family, such as repairing works or the purchase of necessary

furniture or housing equipment. Only two minors explained that the

reintegration support only or mostly benefited them. In general, the minors

were glad to be re‐united with their parents and the reintegration support

seemed to have helped ease the reintegration process back into their families.

Most minors did not experience any problems upon return, yet some faced

challenges. As already mentioned, two had challenges with their family due to

the family’s financial difficulties. Another two had problems at school with

teachers and classmates, but received close support from their mother to find a

solution to the problems. Despite these challenges, all apart from one were

glad that they made the decision to return. One minor explained that

“somehow I lost much time in my life” and now he finally has the possibility to

continue with his life. The minor who regrets returning worries about the

family’s financial situation and future work opportunities, and believes that he

may have made a mistake when he returned.

Aged‐out Minors

The two aged‐out minors who shared their experiences for this report were 18

and 20 years old at the time of return. They both had family in country of origin

and in particular one of them received much support from family members

upon return. One of the aged‐out minors spent the reintegration support on a

business start‐up and is currently running a small car business. According to

him, the reintegration support has been highly useful and since returning he

has at least managed to become partly financially independent. The other aged‐

out minor spent the reintegration support on education and recently

completed high school. She plans to continue studying, but has not yet started.

For her the reintegration support has been very important and she expressed

that “I especially appreciated the support for education, through it I completed

high school.” One of the aged‐out minors are glad to have made the decision to

return, while the other one is indifferent and is of the opinion that life was

much better in Norway.



Victims of Trafficking

Victims of trafficking are in need of close support in the return process due to

their past experiences of exploitation. Relatively few victims of trafficking were

willing to share their experiences for this report. The issue of trafficking is

associated with much stigma and the returnees were afraid that their stories

would be recognized. Only two victims of trafficking agreed to be monitored.

Both used the reintegration support to start up a small business. One has

managed to provide her family with a secure income from farming activities

and is completely financially independent, while the other recently established

a clothing business and has not yet managed to secure a steady income based

on the business activities.

For victims of trafficking a potential concern is the risk of re‐trafficking upon

return. None of the monitored victims of trafficking were worried about the risk

of re‐trafficking prior to or after return. Both re‐established close contact with

their families and have not been in contact with the traffickers since they came

back to their home countries. However, both have kept a low profile with

regards to their trafficking experiences. One of the victims has not told her

family about her experiences in Norway and her family believes she was

working legally in Norway. The two returnees both note that the support from

IOM made them less vulnerable with regards to potential future exploitation as

they were better informed and more economically resilient with the help of the

reintegration assistance.

Migrants with Medical Needs

The three migrants who shared their experiences for the report had greatly

different medical needs upon return. One of the migrants had amputations, one

had mental health problems and the last person had reduced eyesight and was

in need of eye surgery. For the migrants with medical needs, a larger part of the

in‐kind reintegration support was allocated to medical treatment upon return.

The migrants with medical needs have received the medical treatment needed,

however they all report on difficulties with regards to the health care system.

As an example, one of the migrants with medical needs had problems finding

the particular medicine he used in Norway and he had to buy medicines from a

neighbouring country. Another was concerned prior to return since there were



few treatment options nearby his village. He could seek treatment in a larger

city, but this was far from his home. However once he returned, he received the

medical treatment he needed despite the limited treatment options. The last

person was in need of eye surgery upon return and initially faced difficulties

finding adequate treatment, but has since undergone the operation needed to

improve his eyesight.

In addition to the medical treatment, all three started up a business with the

help of the reintegration assistance. One started a clothing business, one

purchased a taxi and the last person attempted to start cattle farming. Due to

their medical expenses the migrants had less support available to start‐up

businesses or engage in other income‐generating activities.3 All of them noted

that the reintegration support was not adequate to re‐establish themselves in

their country of origin. Additionally, all migrants with medical needs returned to

families who were unable to support them financially. On the contrary, all three

had financial responsibilities towards their families. Despite the financial

difficulties and the challenges with regards to medical treatment, migrants with

medical needs were glad they had made the decision to return to their country

of origin. They all explained that they are particularly happy to be re‐united

with their families.

Other Vulnerable Migrants

The other vulnerable migrants who were monitored for the report had different

vulnerabilities upon return. One was an elderly migrant without family network

in country of origin, one was a victim of exploitation and the last was a victim of

domestic violence who returned with her two children. The elderly migrant is

retired and does not engage in any income‐generating activities. Among the

two others, one started up a small business, but is still looking for additional

employment and receives financial support from her family. The other is

employed and her two children go to school.

__________________ 3 The reintegration support within the Vulnerable Groups Project is flexible according to the needs of the individual migrant. Migrants with medical needs mostly use a larger amount on medical support than indicated in the overview on page 9, however the total reintegration support remains the same.



Only one of the migrants in this vulnerability category returned to her family.

She has received close support from family members in the reintegration

process. Two of the other vulnerable migrants did not have family in country of

origin to support them upon return. The elderly woman had no family in

country of origin, and she clearly expressed the challenges of returning without

any family to support her. The other returnee had family in country of origin,

however due to a disagreement she did not contact them upon arrival. She had

the responsibility for two children and had to struggle to manage life on her

own. The three migrants had different feelings with regards to the decision to

return. One was glad she returned, one had mixed feelings and the last

regretted the decision and would like to join her relatives in Europe.

Overall Return Experiences

Most of the returnees are still in the process of re‐adapting to life in their home

country and still work towards securing an adequate income for themselves and

their families. Approximately half of the migrants (48 percent) find that their

quality of life after return is better than in Norway, 44 percent find it worse and

8 percent believe it is the same. Despite this, the large majority (85 percent) of

the migrants believe they made the right decision when they returned. Most

noted that even though they are facing difficulties in their daily life they are at

least reunited with their family. Family clearly plays an essential part in the

migrants’ reintegration process and 80 percent of the returnees stated that

their family members at home were a considerable support in the reintegration

process.

The majority of the migrants expressed that they did not receive any negative

reactions or stigma from family members or the local community, however

many faced other challenges upon return. Among those who experienced

negative reactions, one felt that the local community believed that he had

“wasted his time” and came back as a failure. The most commonly noted

difficulties were adaptation to social and cultural environment, inadequate

health care systems, financial difficulties and lack of work opportunities. Five

returnees also noted difficulties with regards to political, security issues, access

to housing and basic needs and retrieving identity documents. 22 percent of the

returnees reported that they found it challenging to adapt to their social and



cultural environment. This was mentioned both among returnees who had

been out of their country of origin for a number of years and those who had

been away from their home country for less than a year. It appears that

regardless of age and time out of home country, the process of re‐adaption to

local conditions was challenging for many.

As previously mentioned, the overall intention of the reintegration support is to

support migrants’ economic livelihood or future income‐generating

possibilities. The large majority of adult returnees (80 percent) are involved in

income‐generating activities and all minors apart from one are currently

enrolled in education. However, as the experiences from the different

vulnerability categories illustrate, many still face financial challenges and are

still only partially financially independent. A number of the adult returnees are

also in a situation of being the primary income providers in their families which

adds an additional financial burden. Despite the nuanced picture presented, all

migrants express that the reintegration assistance under the Vulnerable Groups

Project has been useful or very useful to be able to re‐establish a new life in

their home country. The returnees also note that the reintegration support is

important with regards to their possibilities of becoming economically self‐

sustained in the future. 92 percent of the migrants stated that the reintegration

support will fully or to some extent help them become financially self‐sufficient

in the future. Overall, the reintegration assistance remained a highly important

element in their return process. On the following page, there are quotes from

some of the returnees that illustrate the importance of the reintegration

support provided by IOM.

The reintegration assistance aims to create the grounds for a durable return

where migrants are able to re‐establish a life in country of origin. The majority

of the migrants (72 percent) state that they intend to stay in their country of

origin for now.4 A few of the migrants did not know whether they would stay in

their home country at the time of return, but have since had a change of mind.

One migrant explained “I did not know at that time. I wanted to see first, then __________________ 4 12 percent do not know and 16 percent would definitely want to re‐emigrate in the future.



“The reintegration grant was very useful. My family was going through economic hardship so it helped us a lot in improving our income

generating resources.”

‐ minor

“The reintegration grant was very important as through it I could pay my rent of the house, improve my professional skills, find a job and provide

essential needs for my children.”

‐ victim of domestic violence

“In general it was useful, but I especially appreciated the support for education, through it I completed high school.”

‐ minor

“Without IOM reintegration money I could not feed my children and carry on my family in my home country.”

‐ migrant with medical needs

“It gave me an opportunity to establish a business from where I can generate income in the future.”

‐ victim of trafficking



make a decision.” Another expressed that: “I intended to stay for some months

and then leave. But now I am at the end of my high school studies in my home

village. I think I will start a job later on.” Some migrants will consider the option

of re‐emigrating if they get the possibility to work or study in another country

at a later stage, but they do not have any concrete plans of re‐emigrating. One

migrant explained that it could be possible to leave again, but “if I ever would

migrate, I would do it for education purposes.” Upon the question of what

would make the returnees re‐emigrate, there are several, often overlapping

reasons, but most often the returnees state that it would be due to new work

or educational opportunities, the lack of work possibilities in country of origin

or due to better access to social services and health care. Other reasons given

are security and difficultly adapting to home country.

The process of re‐establishing a life and livelihood in countries of origin is a long

process for many returnees. Many have been away from their countries of

origin for several years and face specific challenges upon return due to their

vulnerabilities. Despite this, most have clear plans and goals for the future as

illustrated in the mind map on the following page.



Migrants’ Plans for the Future



IOM’s Return and Reintegration Assistance

All migrants apart from one expressed that they were pleased with the overall

return and reintegration assistance provided by IOM. One of the migrants

explained that “Everything was in place, same as I was promised and told. I

have only good impressions.” Most also stated that their vulnerable situation

was taken into account and that their case was given extra attention by IOM

due to their vulnerability. One returnee expressed that: “I felt that my case was

handled with extra care due to the mistreatment experiences. My case was well

taken care of with extra sensitivity and attention at all stages of assistance.”

The migrant that was not satisfied expressed that the return process was not

good enough due to the long waiting time before the travel itself was

organized.

Among the monitored migrants, 92 percent expressed that they received

enough information and counselling to be able to make an informed choice

about voluntary assisted return and reintegration. One of the migrants

explained that “the information provided to me was quite appropriate and

helped me a lot in making the right decision.” Furthermore, 96 percent felt that

they received adequate information prior to return and that they were well

informed about conditions at home prior to making the decision. The migrants’

sources of information were often multiple, ranging from family in country of

origin, friends, staff at reception centres, legal guardians and IOM. However,

one migrant also explained that there was not enough information and stated

that “I do not know if I received enough information to decide for voluntary

return. I think now that I was wrong.” With regards to the reintegration

assistance, 88 percent of the migrants explained that they had received enough

counselling about the reintegration process and that the counselling helped

them prepare for their future. One returnee explained that “the information

about the reintegration support was concise and helped me to get an insight in

how it worked.” A few returnees misunderstood the intention of reintegration

support. As an example, one IOM office reported that one of the minors initially

was confused regarding his reintegration support and “he was thinking that he

could reimburse his father's expenses for the trip to Norway.” Most migrants



state that they are satisfied with the support they received from IOM in their

home country. While the financial aspect of the reintegration support is

important, the practical and moral support is also an essential part of the

reintegration assistance. One returnee expressed that the return process was

“good, but emotionally hard and support from IOM staff was appreciated.”

The migrants were also asked to provide IOM with feedback in order to identify

areas of improvement. In general, the migrants expressed gratitude towards

the work of IOM, for example one stated that “I ask IOM to continue supporting

migrants and not stop this assistance” and yet again one returnee expressed

gratitude by saying: “For me, IOM was one of the best things I ever know and I'll

never forget what IOM did for me and my family.” Some returnees also

provided IOM with suggestions to improve the assistance. The feedback varied

depending on the specific challenges faced during the reintegration process,

but among the recommendations were the need for more business start‐up

training prior to return, assistance with finding work in country of origin, need

to increase the business start‐up support, need for more psychosocial care in

country of origin, more information on available medicines and less paperwork

and easier procedures with regards to paying out reintegration support.

The in‐kind reintegration support given in the Vulnerable Groups Project

requires close cooperation between the returnee, IOM in country of origin and

IOM Norway. Since the reintegration support is given in services and goods

rather than in cash, there are a number of procedures to complete in order to

receive the financial support. While the intention of these procedures is to

assist the returnee in the reintegration process and prevent misuse of funds,

some migrants found the process challenging and time‐consuming. Another

challenging aspect is the distance from the returnees’ home to the IOM office.

While IOM offices for the most part are situated in capitals and large cities,

migrants return to both urban and rural areas. For returnees who live a long

distance from an IOM office, most of the contact between the IOM office and

the returnee takes place on the phone, over email or mail correspondence.

Both the returnees and IOM missions report that this is a challenge, however,

they explain that they manage to find satisfactory solutions to providing

reintegration assistance by distance.



Stories of Return

The migrants who returned under the Vulnerable Groups Project all have their

individual stories. The following accounts aim to shed light on the individual

experiences with the return and reintegration process. Both the positive and

negative aspects of their experiences are presented as the stories aim to

provide a realistic picture of the returnees’ experiences. The stories presented

are from all categories of vulnerable migrants apart from victims of trafficking

who did not want to share their individual stories. Some of the return stories

have the returnees’ full name and picture upon their consent, while others have

wished to remain completely anonymous and are therefore given fictional

names5.

__________________ 5 Fictional names marked with *



Ibrahim from Benin

Ibrahim is from a small village in the north of Benin. He left his village and spent

four years of his life in Europe. In Norway, he stayed at a reception centre and

he faced health problems and many challenges. He decided to return because

his asylum application was rejected and because the difficulties in Norway had

a negative impact on his mental health.

Ibrahim returned to his village in Benin where his wife and two children were

waiting for him. He did not have any formal education, but his father had been

involved in cattle farming and he thereby had much knowledge about cattle

from his childhood. Ibrahim spent most of the reintegration support to

establish a small cattle business. Unfortunately, some of the cattle died and

Ibrahim had to sell the rest. He

is now working as a car mover

and a sweeper at a bus station,

and he is trying to save up

money to buy a truck to start

up a transportation business.

Ibrahim and his wife have taken

on the responsibility for his

brother’s four children, and the

family is in a challenging

financial situation.

Ibrahim and his family live a far

distance from the IOM office which made reintegration support more

challenging. But Ibrahim is grateful for all the support he received from IOM.

Despite the challenges faced after returning to Benin, he is glad that he

returned. Life in the reception centre was hard and he was afraid that he would

never see his family again. He now explains that “Life is better than in Norway.

It is still difficult here, but I have my family near me.”



Esmeralda from Albania

Esmeralda and her two children spent more than ten years outside of Albania.

They lived in Greece for most of that time, but Esmeralda’s husband was

abusive and she eventually left him and came to Norway with her children.

They stayed in a reception centre for ten months, but they did not feel at ease

living at a centre with unknown people. She decided to return to Albania when

her asylum application was rejected, but it was a

difficult choice since she and her children had not

lived in Albania for a long time.

She decided to re‐establish her life with her two

children in Tirana where she had more

opportunities. Her parents lived in another part of

Albania, but she was not in contact with them due

to a family conflict. In the beginning it was hard to adapt to life in Albania and

she wanted to return to Norway. Her children also struggled at school since

they did not read or write Albanian very well. Esmeralda used the reintegration

support to rent an apartment, support her children’s education, take a training

course and do a work placement at a culinary business to improve her

professional skills. She also received support from a

local NGO to cope with her difficult past experiences

of domestic violence.

Esmeralda is currently working at a bakery and as a

cleaner. She explains that it is difficult to accept the

low wages in Albania and she needs to have more

than one job to manage the family’s daily expenses.

Despite the challenges she has faced upon return, her life is gradually improving

and Esmeralda believes that life in better in Albania than at the reception

centre in Norway. She has improved the relationship with her parents and her

children have settled in well and have made many friends. Esmeralda is grateful

for the support she received from IOM. The reintegration support was of a

great help and essential to re‐establish her life in Albania. She explains, “I feel

happy with what IOM offered, not only financially, but also morally for me and

my children. We have been lucky to have had IOM’s support all the time.”



Florentin* from Albania

Florentin came to Norway as an unaccompanied minor. His family in Albania

had a conflict with another family and they were in a difficult financial situation.

Florentin stayed six months at a reception centre for unaccompanied minors in

Norway. His asylum application was refused and he then decided to apply for

return with IOM. His legal guardian in Norway was an invaluable support in this

decision and gave him a lot of information and

advice about his future possibilities.

Florentin faced difficulties when he first

returned to Albania. His family has been very

supportive since he returned, but the family’s

economic situation was very poor at the time.

Florentin also found it difficult to adapt to the

social and cultural environment in Albania. The

reintegration support helped him and his family improve their financial

situation. The support was mainly spent on his education and the family’s

business. The family bought cows and are now selling milk and other dairy

products. This business has greatly improved the family’s financial situation,

and both Florentin and his family are

grateful for the support provided by

IOM.

Florentin thinks that life was better in

Norway, but he is happy that he

returned as now he is close to his family.

He says that “I am home and with my

family, even though living conditions are

difficult. Of course being home is better

than staying at a reception centre.” When Florentin first returned to Albania, he

intended to stay for some months and then leave again. But now he is

completing high school studies in his home village and he thinks that he will

look for a job in Albania later on.



Xenia* from Chile

Xenia migrated from Chile to Spain where she worked as a housekeeper and

nanny for a Spanish family. She came with the family to Norway, but they did

not treat her well and she eventually left her work at the family’s house. She

tried to find other work in Norway, but the language barrier and her illegal

status made it impossible.

Xenia then decided to return

to Chile, but after nine years

out of her home country,

she had no idea what she

would do when she

returned. Xenia found it

challenging to adapt to the

social and cultural

environment in Chile when

she first returned. However,

her children and other

family members were in

Chile and they gave her

much moral support in the

beginning.

Most of the reintegration support was spent to start up a small business. She

bought sewing machines and started a sewing micro‐business. She felt

supported by IOM staff who helped her plan the reintegration process and who

understood her vulnerable situation. The reintegration support has assisted her

in the process of reintegrating in the Chilean society, but she still has financial

worries and she is looking for other jobs to improve her income situation.

Despite the challenges, Xenia is glad that she returned to Chile.



Artan* from Kosovo

Artan came to Norway as an unaccompanied minor and stayed at a reception

centre for unaccompanied minors for four months. He found Norway good, but

he was bored at the reception centre and he missed his family. His asylum

application was rejected and he did not see any other options than returning

with IOM.

Artan returned to live with his parents, but his father and his friends were very

disappointed when he returned after such a short time. Initially, he hoped that

he could spend the reintegration support from IOM to pay back his father’s

expenses for his trip to Norway. According to Artan, IOM showed

understanding for his family

situation and gave him

valuable advice on how to use

the reintegration support.

Artan decided to start an IT‐

course at an institute. He has

since completed several IT‐

courses and hopes it will help

him with find a job in the

future.

Artan is worried about the

high unemployment in Kosovo and he still finds it hard to adapt back into life in

his home country. A part of the reintegration support was used towards

improving the housing situation of the family, but his family is still facing

financial difficulties. He believes that he may have made a mistake when he

decided to return, yet he is grateful for the support received from IOM and he

explains that they gave him courage for further developments in his life.



Aso* and Sara* from Iraq

Aso and Sara are siblings and came to Norway as unaccompanied minors. Their

brother lives in Norway and they lived together with him. They both enjoyed

life in Norway, but their asylum applications were refused and they then

decided to return to their parents in Iraq.

After almost three years in Norway, they found it difficult to re‐adapt to the

social environment in Iraq. However, they had stayed in close contact with their

parents while in Norway and were glad to be back with their family. Both are

students at high school and want

to continue their education.

The reintegration support was

spent on education, the family’s

sheep business, medicines and

other immediate livings costs. The

support to the family business

made the family more

economically resilient and the

whole family has benefited from

it. The siblings appreciate the reintegration assistance given by IOM, but they

live far away from the IOM office, which complicated the support process. Sara

also faced challenges with finding certain medicines that she used while in

Norway.

The siblings prefer life in Norway, but are happy to be with their family.

However, the security situation in their area is difficult right now, and the family

is worried about what will happen in the future.



Aymar from Burundi

Aymar left Burundi for security reasons and stayed in Norway for almost six

years. His asylum application was refused and he decided to apply for return

with IOM. Aymar used to work as a truck driver before he came to Norway, but

he had several amputations and it was difficult to work as a driver with his

health limitations.

After so many years out of his home country, Aymar found it difficult to readapt

to the way of life in Burundi. However, Aymar returned to his family and the

family provided him with much moral support in the reintegration process.

Despite his amputations, he could drive an automatic car and he spent most of

the reintegration support to

buy a taxi. The income from

the taxi driving helped him

support his family. He also

spent parts of the support on

medicines due to his health

problems. Aymar initially had

difficulties finding the

medicines he needed in

Burundi and ended up

buying the medicines from a

neighbouring country.

Aymar explained that he received negative reactions from the local community

when he came back. According to Aymar, “We are seen as people who lived in

Europe and who came back to Africa with nothing. People say we lost our time.”

Despite his challenges, Aymar is glad to be back in his home country. His family

is still in a difficult economic situation, but he is glad that he returned and

explains that it is nevertheless, “Better to be poor in your own country.”



Lina and Liubov from Ukraine

Tamara and Yulia came to Norway as minors. Their father lives in Norway and

they came to live with him. They spent a year and a half in Norway and they

both enjoyed their life. They mastered Norwegian well, made friends and

wanted to continue their studies in Norway. They felt optimistic about the

future and wanted their mother to join them in Norway later on.

Their asylum applications were then

rejected and they decided to return to

Ukraine to live with their mother. While in

Norway, the girls had stayed in close

contact with the mother and had good

knowledge about conditions at home when

they returned. At first, they found it hard to

re‐adapt to life in Ukraine. They recently

graduated from high school, but faced

difficulties with high school programme studies and communication with their

teachers. They lacked some papers to sit entry exams for university and will

have to wait until next year before they can continue their studies at the

university. In the meantime, they are doing an accounting course and would

like to do language courses. The have also spent a part of the reintegration

support on repairing works for the family’s apartment to improve the family’s

housing situation.

The girls explain that their life in Ukraine is more difficult than in Norway due to

the poor socio‐economic conditions and the current unstable political situation

in Ukraine. They are not happy that they returned to Ukraine because they

wanted to stay in Norway, and they do not exclude the possibility of leaving

Ukraine at some point in the future. But for now they want to start university

and get a higher education.



Atiq from Bangladesh

Atiq left Bangladesh more than 30 years ago. He migrated to India to work and

continued through Pakistan, Iran and Greece before he came to Norway in

2011. He stayed at a reception centre in Norway and hoped that he would be

able to stay in Norway due to his old age. However, his asylum application was

rejected and he then decided to return to Bangladesh.

Atiq has a problem with his eyesight and could not see with his right eye. He

spent the reintegration support on health care, a business start‐up, his

children’s educational expenses and immediate livings costs. He started a

clothing business together with a

business partner. However, due to

his health problems he has not been

able to look after his business, and

his partner has been taking care of

the daily work. Atiq recently had

eye surgery, and after his recovery

he plans to be more involved in his

partnership business.

Atiq is grateful for the support he

has received from IOM and he feels that he received much support both before

he returned to Bangladesh and after he came back. The reintegration assistance

has been somewhat challenging as Atiq lives far from the IOM office in Dhaka,

but he has stayed in good contact with IOM over the phone. Atiq found the

return process good, but expressed that the reintegration support should be

increased. Since he spent a considerable part of his reintegration support on

medical treatment, he had less funds to establish his business.

Atiq explains that he and his family are in a difficult financial situation and he

worries about the future. His family has been very supportive since he returned

to Bangladesh, but they do not have the means to support him financially.

Despite the difficulties, Atiq is glad to be back because now he can pass time

with his wife and three children. According to him, “that is why I am happy.”



Ahmed from Tunisia*

Ahmed came to Norway after spending about six months in Italy. He applied for

asylum in Norway, but his asylum claim was not assessed as he had a residence

permit in Italy. He found conditions in Norway good, but he disliked the cold

and was in low spirits because he could not achieve his goals. Instead of

returning to Italy, he decided to return with IOM to his home country Tunisia.

Ahmed was received by his parents when he returned. At first he wanted to go

back to Italy as he had a residence permit there, but he then decided to stay in

Tunisia for some time. His family supported him when he came back and his

father gave him advice on how to best make use of the reintegration support.

Ahmed spent most of the reintegration

support on improving the family’s housing

conditions and further education, and he

has been taking courses in English and

German. He also found work and is making

some money to support himself and his

family.

Ahmed thinks that life is better in Tunisia

than in Norway and he is glad that he

returned. He found that reintegration support was highly useful, particularly

with regards to securing the family’s housing situation. Ahmed wishes to leave

Tunisia again in the near future. He still has a valid residence permit in Italy and

wants to go there to study tourism. He worries about being able to find a good

job in the future, but hopes his language courses and tourism studies will help

him.



Conclusions and Recommendations

Voluntary assisted return and reintegration brings with it both opportunities

and challenges. While return is most often not the preferred choice for

migrants, it can also be a possibility for migrants to regain control over their

lives and shape their future. The experiences presented in this report clearly

illustrate both the positive and negative aspects of going home. While all

migrants would have stayed in Norway if they had the possibility to legalize

their stay, 85 percent are still glad that they decided to return and feel that they

made the right decision given their situation.

Most migrants who returned under the Vulnerable Groups Project were not

completely economically self‐sustained by the end of the reintegration process.

For the minors, financial independence is not a goal in itself as they invest in

their future by continuing with their education. All minors but one continued at

school or underwent vocational training after return. Additionally, the minors

were reunited with their families and most were glad to be back with their

family. Two of the minors faced difficulties with their families upon return; their

families face financial difficulties and were disappointed when their children

came back from Norway. It appears that the return process was easier for

minors when the family’s overall income‐generating possibilities were

enhanced, which illustrates that the return process for minors must be tailored

to the overall family situation. With regards to the adult returnees, 80 percent

have managed to establish an economic livelihood. However, most still report

that they are struggling to make ends meet financially. All returnees stated that

the reintegration support provided by IOM was important in the process of re‐

establishing a life in their home country and 92 percent expressed that the

reintegration support increased their chances of being financially self‐sustained

in the future. Apart from the reintegration support, family members in country

of origin clearly played an important role in the reintegration process for most

returnees.

This report illustrates that there is room for improvement with regards to the

reintegration assistance provided to vulnerable migrants. Six of the migrants



started up a small business upon return, of which one of the business start‐ups

were unsuccessful. Among the other five, only one of the business owners has

managed to create a satisfying livelihood from the business activity. While

migrants are given financial support to start a business, there is also a need for

individually‐tailored business training as many of the migrants do not have any

former experience with running a business. Additionally, migrants with

extensive medical needs use a substantial part of the reintegration support

towards medical treatment, and there is consequently less funds available for

creating an economic livelihood. While it is essential for migrants with medical

needs to have access to necessary medical treatment, it is also important to

ensure an economic livelihood in order to enhance a more sustainable return

process.

Information and counselling is important in all stages of the return and

reintegration process. It is crucial that migrants have enough information in

order to make an informed choice about return and it is equally important to

have adequate information about the return process and reintegration

assistance in order to have realistic expectations of what return entails for the

individual. Most of the migrants expressed that they received adequate

information and counselling prior to return to be able to make an informed

choice and to prepare for their future. However, it is still important for IOM to

continue improving information and counselling in order to ensure that return

is organized in an as safe, dignified and durable way as possible. In relation to

minors, experience also illustrates that it is important to counsel the minor’s

family in order to ensure that the family understands the situation of their child

and what assistance IOM can provide in the return process. Additionally, in

relation to migrants who settle in areas far from an IOM office it is important to

ensure that they are aware of how reintegration assistance will be provided

from distance to facilitate the reintegration process.

This report presents the experiences of a limited number of vulnerable migrants

who have returned with IOM. Despite the limited number of experiences

shared, this report nevertheless sheds light on both the challenges and

opportunities inherent in the return and reintegration process for vulnerable



migrants. The intention is that this report will be useful for organizations

working with vulnerable migrants and migrants themselves to be able to make

a more informed choice about their future. IOM Norway would again like to

express its gratitude to the migrants who contributed to the report by sharing

their experiences with the process of returning home.

going home: return and reintegration for vulnerable migrants

Documents