A/HRC/48/Add.xx applications only, there is no legal mechanism in place protecting non-citizen’s procedural rights and preventing human rights abuses from occurring. Similar visa algorithms are currently in use in the UK and have been challenged in court for their discriminatory potential.118 Canada, Switzerland and the UK also use automated or algorithmic decisionmaking “for selecting refugees and resettling them.”119 The introduction of new technologies impacts both the processes and outcomes associated with decisions that would otherwise be made by administrative tribunals, immigration officers, border agents, legal analysts, and other officials responsible for the administration of immigration and refugee systems, border enforcement, and refugee response management. There is a serious lack of clarity surrounding how courts will interpret administrative law principles like natural justice, procedural fairness, and standard of review where an automated decision system is concerned or where an opaque use of technology operates. 45. In some contexts, the nature of technological experimentation relates to the genetic data collection, whose purposes are justified on tenuous grounds. One submission described the Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”), a forensic DNA database in the US through which individual states and the federal government collect, store and share genetic information.120 Since January 2020, the federal government has been collecting DNA from any person in immigration custody.121 This means that “for the first time, CODIS will warehouse the genetic data of people who have not been accused of any crime, for crime detection purposes,” severing the longstanding prerequisite of prior alleged criminal conduct to compel DNA collection.122 Non-citizens in immigration custody are not criminals as a rule.123 In fact, the vast majority of immigration infractions for which an immigrant is detained are civil in nature.124 In the case of asylum seekers, who form an increasingly large proportion of the detained non-citizen population, both international and domestic laws expressly allow them to enter the U.S. to claim the right to refuge.125 The submission rightly highlights that the new immigration policy risks turning CODIS into a ”genetic panopticon” that will “encompass anyone within [US] borders, including ordinary Americans neither convicted nor even suspected of criminal conduct,” threatening democracy and human rights.126 46. As COVID-19 has further incentivized and legitimized surveillance and other technologies targeting refugees and migrants, these groups have been subjected to further experimentation.127 One example is the experimental deployment of an immunity passport called “COVI-Pass” in Western Africa.128 A partnership between Mastercard and GAVI Vaccine Alliance, this digital initiative combines biometrics, contact tracing, cashless payments, national identification and law enforcement.129 Not only do such technologies operate outside human rights impact assessments and regulations, they also risk threatening human rights, including freedom of movement, the right to privacy, the right to bodily autonomy and the right to equality and non-discrimination, especially for refugees and migrants.130 47. In the UK, contact tracing apps and other data-collection technologies to combat COVID-19 have raised concerns that “mission-creep” could eventually lead to the systems being used for immigration enforcement. Fears that gathered data could be used for such purposes may undermine trust in contact-tracing technologies among immigrant 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants v. Secretary of State for the Home Department CO/2057/2020. Maat for Peace, Submission; Beduschi, Submission citing Molnar & Gill. Daniel I. Morales, Natalie Ram & Jessica L. Roberts, Submission. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Amnesty International, Submission. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 15