Understanding Procedural Fairness Through the Voices of Asylum Seekers: A Thematic Analysis

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the perceptions of procedural fairness among asylum seekers residing in Tehran, with a focus on how they experience and interpret key elements of justice during their interactions with the asylum system. Using a qualitative research design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 asylum seekers from diverse national backgrounds, currently residing in Tehran. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, and interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis guided by Braun and Clarke’s framework. NVivo software was used to facilitate the coding process and thematic categorization. Analysis revealed five major themes: (1) lack of transparency in procedures, including legal ambiguities, inconsistent communication, and language barriers; (2) limited voice and participation, where participants felt rushed or silenced during hearings; (3) perceived bias and discrimination based on nationality, religion, or identity; (4) prolonged delays and legal uncertainty, which caused emotional distress and disempowerment; and (5) loss of trust in institutions due to perceived unfairness and dehumanizing treatment. Participants emphasized that procedural justice was judged not solely by outcomes, but by how respectfully, clearly, and consistently they were treated during the asylum process. The study highlights significant gaps in the procedural fairness experienced by asylum seekers in Tehran, with implications for legal legitimacy, mental well-being, and social integration. The findings underscore the urgent need for improved communication, transparent legal frameworks, and culturally sensitive practices. Procedural fairness must be prioritized not only as a legal requirement but as a moral and psychological imperative within asylum systems.