There is a growing trend towards states offering displaced people temporary legal-protection as a substitute for the longer-term guarantees that asylum is meant to provide. What impact does this have on displaced individuals? Alessandra Enrico-Headrington conducted focus groups with Venezuelans living in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador and found that their preferences and experiences in relation to legal-protection are complex and diverse.
Alessandra Enrico-Headrington, DPhil candidate, Migration Studies
In recent years, the global landscape of legal protection has been increasingly shaped by the proliferation of ad hoc regimes designed to provide short-term residence permits to people who might otherwise be granted refugee protection. From the United States’ Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Turkey’s temporary protection for Syrians, and the United Kingdom’s tailored pathways for residents of Hong Kong and Ukrainians, states are increasingly relying on temporary legal regimes to manage large-scale displacement. At the regional level, the European Union’s activation of the Temporary Protection Directive further illustrates this growing reliance on temporary pathways over traditional asylum systems.
Most discussions within academia have focused on how states are moving towards temporary legal-protection regimes which are more precarious for the affected displaced populations and oriented to suit the interests of the host country. In contrast, the existing asylum system, although imperfect, provides a rights-based pathway grounded in human rights instruments and designed to offer long-term protection. Yet far less attention has been paid to how displaced persons' themselves experience these competing legal pathways, or the extent to which temporary protection schemes meaningfully respond to their needs, aspirations, and everyday realities.
Much of the existing literature is shaped by European and wider Global North experiences, often overlooking the realities faced by displaced people in the Global South. It is therefore crucial to examine their actual experiences. Everyday encounters with legal frameworks reveal how individuals navigate, interpret, and engage with the legal architecture available to them, particularly in the countries of the Global South, which continue to host the vast majority of people on the move worldwide.
A trend towards temporary legal protection regimes in Latin America
In recent years, Latin American countries have joined the global shift towards temporary legal regimes. In the case of Venezuelans, states have tended to prioritise domestic legal remedies that grant residence for a limited period, effectively side-lining any assessment of whether these individuals might qualify for international protection. While procedures for refugee status determination do exist, their implementation has been tightly restricted, following the criteria of the 1951 Refugee Convention rather than drawing on regional frameworks that offer a broader definition of what constitutes a refugee, such as the Cartagena Declaration. Brazil and Mexico stand as notable exceptions, having applied the expanded Cartagena definition to Venezuelans on a prima facie basis, though even in these cases, such recognition occurs only at specific moments and under particular circumstances.
In this context, my doctoral research, generously supported by the Gil Loescher Fund, focused on this issue, providing an opportunity to engage directly with Venezuelan communities in three key Andean countries, Colombia, which hosts three million Venezuelans; Peru, which hosts 1.7 million; and Ecuador, which hosts 400 thousand (R4V, 2025). Focus groups with a total of 84 Venezuelans situated in Bogotá, Lima and Quito explored how the top-down approaches to legal protection are perceived on the ground, and whether they align with, or diverge from, the everyday experiences and strategies of those navigating these systems. Their insights shed light on their motivations upon arrival, the challenges of navigating legal systems, and the everyday decisions involved in pursuing (or not pursuing) legal status.
Displaced Venezuelans’ diverse preferences, experiences and knowledge of legal-protection options
Surprisingly, the focus groups revealed that across the three countries many Venezuelans tend to prefer these temporary legal regimes, despite the limited set of rights they offer. This preference can be directly linked to several shortcomings in the asylum system, such as long processing times and a lack of accessible information. Most participants see temporary protection as faster and more accessible, even if it requires paying a fee or going through a verification process. They often mentioned that information about these schemes is clearer, less confusing, and more publicly available, which makes them easier to navigate compared to asylum procedures.
However, expectations of legal residence often collide with reality: what these permits promise quickly fades when Venezuelans encounter everyday barriers. They face significant hurdles when trying to meet basic needs, including renting a home, obtaining a SIM card, or opening a bank account. More structural challenges, such as accessing public healthcare or securing formal employment, are often out of reach. These experiences highlight not only the precarious nature of temporary status but also the deep disappointment many feel about what it actually means to be regularised in the host country.
Only a small number of participants, usually those with greater access to information or longer stays in one of the three countries, recognised that their personal or country-of-origin situation could meet the refugee definition. Within this group, some chose to persevere with the asylum system, believing that the recognition process would ultimately provide them with a stronger document that supports better long-term integration. Others, despite self-identifying as refugees, still preferred to apply for a temporary legal regime rather than face the uncertainty of asylum procedures, which they described as slow, bureaucratic, and discretionary. A final group even pursued both routes simultaneously, effectively duplicating procedures to diversify and maximise their options.
Current legal-protection regimes often fall short of meeting the needs of individuals
Even though there are many nuances across gender, age, and country contexts, it is important to recognise how state-designed legal pathways are often crafted to channel individuals into short-term arrangements rather than long-term protection that otherwise would be offered by refugee protection. This is particularly evident when states deliberately restrict the application of the refugee definition, or outright neglect the broader definition outlined in the Cartagena Declaration. The focus group discussions highlighted how these policy choices play out in the lives of Venezuelans’ and how their preferences for different legal statuses are much more complex and diverse when seen from a bottom-up perspective.
Ultimately, temporary legal regimes often fall short of meeting the practical demands of everyday life, exposing a gap between what legal status promises and what it actually delivers. This disconnect shapes perceptions of the state, bureaucracy, and the very meaning of being “regularised”. Yet even within these highly constrained systems, displaced people are far from passive. Venezuelans actively navigate complex legal landscapes, making strategic choices even when temporary legal regimes are short-term, precarious, and offer limited prospects. Far from being inactive recipients of legal rules, they exercise agency in calculating how to optimise their legal status, seeking ways to gain stability and security, however provisional it may be.