There is increased recognition of the importance of well-designed scholarship on how immigration status and policies impact migrants in the United States, including those who are unauthorized. Some researchers have looked to community-based and participatory methods to develop trust, place migrants' voices at the forefront, and engage collaboratively in using research as a tool for social change. This article reviews three ethical ambiguities that emerged in the process of a series of participatory action research (PAR) projects with migrants in the United States, many of whom were unauthorized. Specifically, three themes are discussed: (a) the tension between the human desire to respond to injustices, and the challenges of doing so in ways that recognize one's privilege and power as an outsider and supports the migrants' agency and autonomy; (b) the complex definition, explanation, and dimensions of "risk"; and (c) the complexity of using a methodology (PAR) that prioritizes participants' collective identity and community in the context of regulations that are designed primarily to protect individuals.

Immigrants constitute a significant percentage of the total population living in the United States; however, there is a paucity of research unique to suicidality among immigrants. The present article examines the applicability of the three variables of the interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behavior-acquired capability for suicide, sense of thwarted belongingness, and perceived burdensomeness-to conceptualize, assess, and treat suicidality among immigrants. Risk and protective factors and mechanisms are discussed in the context of 2 case studies and immigrant paradox. Clinical implications include assessment and treatment of immigrant-specific experiences. Obstacles to treatment and future research directions are presented.

A considerable body of literature focuses on suicide risk assessment, treatment, and prevention. However, incorporation of these research and theoretical advances in routine care by practitioners has been largely unexamined. We examine the challenges-lack of training, fear, complexities of decision-making, practical barriers, lack of usage of assessment tools, and violations of psychometric principles by assessment tools-that confront practitioners when utilizing advances in the field. Identifying and addressing these barriers has implications to help bridge the gaps between theory, research, and practice to improve quality of care. Clinical, training, policy implications, and future research directions are reviewed.