Email: d.venturi@sssup.it
Website: http://sssup.academia.edu/DeniseVenturi
Bio:
Denise Venturi is a PhD candidate in Law at KU Leuven (Belgium). Her research investigates the use of the concept of vulnerability in the legal reasoning in asylum cases, particularly in claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Currently, she works as an Eligibility Expert at UNHCR, based in Rome, Italy. Previously, she has worked as a Legal officer at ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles) focusing on strategic litigation. She has been a Visiting Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology and a Honorary Research Assistant at the University of Liverpool. Denise holds a Master's Degree in Law and a Postgraduate Degree in Asylum and Immigration Law from the University of Florence, as well as European master's Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation from EIUC (Venice) and KU Leuven. Previously she has worked as a criminal defence and immigration lawyer in Italy, where she was admitted to the Bar in 2013. Denise has interned with UNHCR Bureau for Europe and PICUM and has several years of experience as a volunteer with NGOs dealing with refugees and migrants' rights. Her research interests focus on RSD, rules of evidence, securitisation and gender issues. She is part of the Editorial Committee of the Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and HUmanitarian Law.
Publications/recent projects:
- LGBTI Asylum Seekers and Refugees from a Legal and Political Perspective (eds., forthcoming 2019)
- Migrant Workers’ Rights in Focus: Placing the UN Convention on Migrant Workers in the European Human Rights’ Framework (forthcoming, 2019)
- Linking Counter Terrorism and Refugee Law: Unravelling the (Undue) Nexus with International Law (2018)
- Testing the Untestable: The CJEU's Decision in Case C-473/16, F V Bevándorlási És Állampolgársági Hivatal (2018)
- Isis and the Violations of Human Rights of Sexual Minorities: Is the International Community Responding Adequately? (2017)
- The potential of a vulnerability-based approach: some additional reflections following O.M. v Hungary (2016)