PUSH FOR PRIMA-FACIE RECOGNITION While protection opportunities should be available to anyone in need, the current reality is that specific source countries account for the majority of asylum seekers and refugees. This reality underlies this report’s focus on Rohingya and Afghan refugees—populations that could be candidates for group-based or prima facie designations. Similar but distinct from temporary arrangements, prima facie designations may be a way of managing the concern of governments that opening the doors to these particular populations encourages increased arrivals and applications for protection from all. Advocates may not want to shy away from calling for arrangements or measures that target specific nationalities or subsets of such populations—again like temporary frameworks—as a starting point to more formal protection. Governments may be encouraged, rather than criticized, for making group-based designations, particularly after crises unfold. Members of the Rohingya community are particularly apt for such a designation, given the widespread acknowledgment that they have experienced genocide; similarly, specific ethnic minority groups from Afghanistan such as the Hazara community may also be suitable for prima facie designations. Because limited protection for only some profiles may lead to a very real perception that certain groups are favored and others ignored, it will be critical for advocates to consider this to be a potential compromise with states that are seemingly unwilling to open the door at all. To counter negative outcomes, such an approach may be qualified as only temporary, which aligns with how the concept has been assessed by UNHCR.132 In this way, prima facie designations and temporary protection measures are interrelated and may be considered in tandem by advocates looking to promote policy responses that account for political realities in the region. PRIORITIZE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT In some of the contexts featured in this report, refugees are not confined to living in camps. These practices align with UNHCR’s organizational stance on the use of camp-based confinement of refugees, which highlight the ways in which camps can hinder refugees’ self-management and access to livelihoods and cause negative environmental impacts, among other problems.133 Regional refugee host countries like Malaysia, which does not maintain any formal camps, still face significant challenges in extending comprehensive rights and entitlements to refugee populations. But they demonstrate the feasibility of implementing freedom of movement even by non-signatory states. Freedom of movement must be prioritized in conversations with states hosting refugees and spoken about in consultation with local host communities. There should be more effective and concerted awareness-raising regarding the negative impacts of restrictions on mobility for protection seekers, emphasizing both protection seekers’ rights as well as the downsides for the host community. ADOVCATE TO END IMMIGRATION DETENTION Where immigration detention is being used by states against individuals with protection concerns, as is the case in a number of the countries surveyed, advocates may consider engaging in calls to end these practices, including through the promotion of rights-based alternatives. 41 UND OING PRECARIT Y: ELE VATING P OSITIVE PR ACTICES FOR REFU GEE PROTECTION IN SO U TH AND SO U THE AST ASIA