There is a subgroup for whom psychological evidence may be relevant to persecution; the capacity of the person to survive physically and psychologically upon repatriation as a consequence of their mental state; and the psychological aspects of the reasonableness of internal relocation. Regardless of whether it is possible to make further claims, we have to decide what way we can work with a client whose future is profoundly uncertain and who appears destined to re-enter the country from which they have fled.
Some questions considered are the following: are the essential preconditions to trauma focused work always absent? What are the psychological and ethical considerations at play in preparing clients for repatriation? Should we be speaking about the possibility of return from early in our engagement with a client? Should we advocate; to keep a client out of detention prior to return, or for a delay in return while treatment is undertaken?