Is it coercive control? / INST / INST-4

INST-4

Immigration document withholding and application interference

Definition

Withholding, confiscating, or destroying the target's passport, visa, green card, or other immigration paperwork, or obstructing, withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw support for a pending immigration petition or application.

How it operates

Statements or acts of withholding, hiding, or destroying immigration documents. Refusing to file or withdrawing a spousal or other petition. Threats to contact immigration authorities. Using the target's dependent status as leverage.

Function

Trap the target through legal status dependence and make departure or independent action appear impossible or catastrophically risky.

Harm

Profound restriction of mobility, heightened fear of detention or removal, and the conversion of immigration status into a primary instrument of control. The abuser exploits structural vulnerability created by immigration law to eliminate the target's exit options and to enforce compliance. The threat or act of interfering with documents or petitions restricts the target's physical and legal autonomy in a way that is difficult to escape without institutional intervention that the abuser may also control or influence.

Why this is coercive control

Neutral discussion of the location of jointly held documents without a control or leverage frame. The conduct here traps the target through legal status dependence and make departure or independent action appear impossible or catastrophically risky.

Constructed example

I already called the lawyer to pull your petition. Good luck explaining that to ICE alone.

Fictitious. Written to illustrate the behavior. Not a case.

Erez, Adelman & Gregory 2009; Salcido & Adelman 2004.

Literature this family is drawn from

  • Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851-875.
  • Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 84-99.
  • Miller, S. L., & Smolter, N. L. (2011). “Paper abuse”: When all else fails, batterers use procedural stalking. Violence Against Women, 17(5), 637-650.
  • Bettinson, V. (2022). A comparative analysis of the defence of duress in England and Wales and Scotland: Implications for victims of coercive control. Journal of Criminal Law.
  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-1(b) (Jennifer’s Law, 2021).

Literature map

Forums that enumerate this family

A statute that names a tactic is not a finding that the tactic is present.

Identifying a behavior described here does not establish a pattern of behavior and does not establish coercive control. A tactic is not a regime. The instrument consolidates peer-reviewed literature so a reader can check when in doubt. The instrument is not a coding manual. Carlton Research does not provide the instrument as a weapon.

© 2026 Carisa Carlton.

How to cite

Carlton, C. (2026). Is it coercive control?: INST-4. Carlton Research Instruments. /codebook/inst-4. Last reviewed August 31, 2026.