After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures around Europe, fresh technologies are actually reviving these types of systems. From lie diagnosis tools tested at the line to a program for confirming documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technology is being made use of in asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these technologies have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. This reveals just how asylum seekers will be transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to conform to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and keep up with unpredictable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their particular capacity to get around these systems and to pursue their legal right for safeguard.

It also displays how these types of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They help in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering them from accessing the programs of cover. It further argues that analyses of securitization and victimization should be coupled with an insight in the disciplinary mechanisms for these technologies, by which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects who all are self-disciplined by their dependence on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal knowledge, the article argues that these technology have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double impact: while they assist to expedite the asylum process, they also produce it difficult pertaining to refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes all of them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions of non-governmental celebrities, and asylum consultation ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.