I balance suffering(s): The politics and moralities of humanitarian caseworkers in Egypt as a refugee transit point.

In a world where asylum and migration have become major concerns for countries of transit and destination, political neutrality seems to be demanded from humanitarian workers. But under the pressures of workload, limited funds, and complex settings, these actors deviate from expectations and practice extra‐legal authority of a unique political nature. When handling asylum cases, these agents take crucial decisions that decisively impact the lives of asylum seekers. In legally fragile transit points where the rule of law faces challenges and where asylum seekers come seeking further resettlement in European countries, rejected applicants face risky fates of deportation, jail, violence, or death. In turn, humanitarian caseworkers pushed by workloads, purse strings, emotional burnout, and compassion fatigue, flatten the sufferings of their applicants, balance, and rank them. Caseworkers have to rank sufferings and decide who may eventually survive and who may simply be left to a risky unknown. In Agambian terms, this extralegal authority draws the lines, creates a zone of exception and throws rejected applicants into the realm of "Bare Life" where they become "Homo Sacer," whose life is worthless. Using Lipsky's theorization of street‐level bureaucrats and in‐depth interviews, the paper tackles these crucial issues by interviewing caseworkers from a variety of international organizations operating in the transit point of Egypt. These caseworkers are responsible for conducting different roles in the Refugee Status Determination process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]