The study aimed to explore the influence of legal status on mental health outcomes among immigrants, seeking to identify the main themes that characterize the interplay between legal precarity and psychological well-being. This qualitative research employed semi-structured interviews with 28 participants, representing a diverse array of legal statuses, national origins, and experiences. The study focused on capturing the depth and complexity of immigrants' experiences related to their legal status and its impact on their mental health. Thematic analysis was utilized to analyze the data, with a focus on achieving theoretical saturation to ensure the comprehensiveness of the identified themes. Five main themes were identified: Legal Uncertainty, Socioeconomic Impact, Cultural and Identity Challenges, Psychological Well-being, and System Navigation. Each theme comprised various categories and concepts, such as Stress and Anxiety, Employment Challenges, Cultural Dislocation, Trauma and PTSD, and Legal System Navigation, highlighting the multifaceted impact of legal status on mental health. Participants reported significant stress and anxiety due to fears of deportation, employment insecurity, cultural and identity struggles, and challenges in accessing health careand legal services, all of which contribute to adverse mental health outcomes. The study concludes that the legal status of immigrants is a critical determinant of their mental health outcomes, with legal precarity exacerbating stress, anxiety, depression, and trauma. These findings underscore the need for policy reforms, targeted mental health services, and supportive interventions that address the unique challenges faced by immigrants. By understanding and mitigating the impacts of legal uncertainty and socioeconomic, cultural, and systemic barriers, it is possible to improve the mental health and well-being of immigrant populations.

The collapse of the former Soviet Union, drew the Caspian Sea region out from a pure and calm strategic region and created numerous geopolitical opportunities and challenges for Iran and Russia. This fundamental development caused change in the surrounding Caspian Sea’s political borders and impacted on the legal status of the sea. Iran and Russia’s policies and approaches towards the Caspian Sea legal status fundamentally altered, as well. At the same time, with the emergence of differences of opinions and views among the coastal countries on the legal status and the way to exploit the Caspian Sea resources, there was created a fertile bed for presence and interference of big and extra-regional countries in the Caspian Sea. Under such circumstances, Iran/Russia policy alignment for managing the legal status developments of the Caspian Sea and preventing it from becoming a new hotbed of tensions , as well as, nearing together the opinions and positions of the other coastal countries has been crucial. The pivotal and main question of the present article is what impact Iran and Russia policies toward the legal status of the Caspian Sea can have on the expansion of penta-lateral cooperation among the Caspian Sea coastal countries. In the present paper this question is put to test whether Iran/Russia policies towards the Caspian Sea legal system- apart from the negative historical mindsets between the two countries- due to reasons like geographical continuity, regional requirements, joint destiny and the Caspian Sea vulnerability resulting from presence of the big powers, and concerns about emergence of instability and insecurity in the Caspian Sea, have been more convergent and led to strengthening of cooperation and conclusion of various documents of penta-lateral cooperation among the coastal countries. The present paper is of the Analytical-Descriptive type and the method used is inferential and the data has been analyzed using library and Internet sources.

One of the reasons for the special importance of the HRC in the protection and promotion of human rights is due to the mission of this institution to adopt GCs. Despite the fact that the committee is competent to adopt GCs according to Art.40 (4) ICCPR, the legal status of these GCs is always the subject of debate. The GCS, which are an extract of all the knowledge, findings and experiences of the Committee during its mandates, have a legal status in the series of non-exclusive sources of international law, although they are not legally binding. They can be considered as secondary or complementary sources of international law. The main issue of this article was the placement of GCs in the normative hierarchy and sources of international law, their compliance due to their legal status, and subsequently the development and promotion of human rights through the lens of their ratification.

The revolutionary institutions, due to the authority of the public power, form an important part of the administrative organization in Iran. the legal status of the institutions in question was ambiguous, The legislator tried to create a legal personality by adopting the Public Accounts Act of 1366 and the Law on the List of Non-Governmental Organizations and Public Institutions approved in 1373. The grant of a new legal personality to these institutions also did not result in recognition of their legal status. the explanation of the legal status of revolutionary institutions can be effective in responding to them, realizing the principle of the rule of law and guaranteeing the rights of individuals in dealing with them; In this research, we have tried to study the subject in a descriptive-analytical manner, In conclusion, the conclusion that the requirement for the revolutionary institutions to comply with Articles (2) to (5) of the Public Accounts Law not only did not explain the legal status of these institutions, But also caused some problems in the administrative law system and oversight of the institutions under discussion due to the formation of a dual structure (revolutionary institution, the public non- governmental organization) for some of them. Since the dichotomy of the legal personality of these institutions has caused ambiguities in the employment system, their incomes, property and their monitoring. It seems necessary to create a single recruitment, financial and oversight system for them.