Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-21T14:10:34.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law and Administrative Insulation: A Comparison of Refugee Status Determination Regimes in the United States, Canada, and Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Rebecca Hamlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International law provides nations with a common definition of a refugee, yet the processes by which countries determine who should be granted refugee status look strikingly different, even across nations with many institutional, cultural, geographical, and political similarities. This article compares the refugee status determination regimes of three popular asylum seeker destinations—the United States, Canada, and Australia. Despite these nations' similar border control policies, asylum seekers crossing their borders access three very different systems. These differences have less to do with political debates over admission and border control policy than with the level of insulation the administrative decision-making agency enjoys from political interference and judicial review. Bureaucratic justice is conceptualized and organized differently in different states, and so states vary in how they draw the line between refugee and nonrefugee.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Fall 2012 , pp. 933 - 968
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

Adler, Michael. 2003. A Socio-Legal Approach to Administrative Justice. Law & Policy 25 (4): 323–52.Google Scholar
Alford, William. 1986. On the Limits of Grand Theory in Comparative Law. Washington Law Review 61:945–56.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. 2003. Seeking Meaningful Review: Findings and Recommendations in Response to Dorsey & Whitney Study of Board of Immigration Appeals Procedural Reforms. October. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_services/immigration/publications.html (accessed January 19, 2012).Google Scholar
Amnesty International. 2000. The Crackdown on Falun Gong and Other So-Called Heretical Organizations. March 23. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/011/2000 (accessed January 19, 2012).Google Scholar
Arnold, Michael. 1993. Calls to Change Asylum System Gain Urgency. Washington Post, June 13.Google Scholar
Clark, Campbell. 2010. Tories' “Let's-Make-a-Deal” Approach Good Politics. Globe and Mail, June 11.Google Scholar
Cornelius, Wayne, Tsuda, Takeyuki, Martin, Philip, and Hollifield, James, ed. 2004. Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, 2d ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Creyke, Robin. 2007. Administrative Tribunals. In Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principals, and Doctrines, ed. Groves, Matthew and Lee, H. P., 77–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crock, Mary. 2004. Judging Refugees: The Clash of Power and Institutions in the Development of Australian Refugee Law. Sydney Law Review 51 (26): 51–73.Google Scholar
Damaska, Mirjan. 1986. The Faces of Justice and State Authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dauvergne, Catherine. 2005. Humanitarianism, Identity, and Nation: Migration Laws in Canada and Australia. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Faison, Seth. 1993. A Flicker of Empathy for 110 Chinese. New York Times, October 21.Google Scholar
Freeman, Gary. 1995. Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States. International Migration Review 19 (4): 881–902.Google Scholar
Gibney, Matthew. 2006. “A Thousand Little Guantanamos”: Western States and Measures to Prevent the Arrival of Refugees. In Displacement, Asylum, Migration, ed. Tunstall, Kate E., 139–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Jon, Sheppard, Colleen, and Wheeldon, Johannes. 2010. A Refugee from Justice? Disparate Treatment in the Federal Court of Canada. Law & Policy 32 (4): 454–86.Google Scholar
Guiraudon, Virginie. 2000. The Marshallian Triptych Reordered: The Role of Courts and Bureaucracies in Furthering Migrants' Social Rights. In Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State, ed. Bommes, Michael and Geddes, Andrew, 71–88. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heckman, Gerald. 2008. Canada's Refugee Status Determination System and the International Norm of Independence. Refuge 25 (2): 79–102.Google Scholar
Hollifield, James. 2004. The Emerging Migration State. International Migration Review 38 (3): 885–912.Google Scholar
Hsu, Wesley. 1996. The Tragedy of the Golden Venture: Politics Trump the Administrative Procedures Act and the Rule of Law. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 10:317–70.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Andrew. 2009. China Still Presses Crusade Against Falun Gong. New York Times, April 27.Google Scholar
Jacobson, David. 1996. Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Joppke, Christian. 1998. Asylum and State Sovereignty: A Comparison of the United States, Germany and Britain. In Challenge to the Nation-State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States, ed. Joppke, Christian, 109–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert. 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kernerman, Gerald. 2008. Refugee Interdiction Before Heaven's Gate. Government and Opposition 43 (2): 230–48.Google Scholar
Kneebone, Susan. 2003. Bouncing the Ball Between the Courts and the Legislature: What is the Score on Refugee Issues? Paper presented at Human Rights 2003: The Year in Review, December 4, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University, Melbourne: Australia.Google Scholar
Kneebone, Susan. ed. 2009. Refugees, Asylum Seekers and the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Law, Anna. 2010. The Immigration Battle in American Courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Legomsky, Stephen. 1998. Refugees, Administrative Tribunals, and Real Independence: Dangers Ahead for Australia. Washington University Law Review 76:243–54.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2005. Fed Courts Criticize Judges' Handling of Asylum Cases. New York Times, December 26.Google Scholar
Martin, David, ed. 1988. The New Asylum Seekers: Refugee Law in the 1980s. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry. 1985. Due Process in the Administrative State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Metherell, Mark. 2008. I Should Not Play God: Evans. Sydney Morning Herald, February 20.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stewart. 1843 2002. A System of Logic. Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacific.Google Scholar
Narushima, Yuko. 2010. Parties Row in the Same Direction Over Boat Arrivals: Decision 2010. Sydney Morning Herald, August 10.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 1996. The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Teune, Henry. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ramji-Nogales, Jaya, Schrag, Phillip, and Schoenholtz, Andrew. 2007. Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication. Stanford Law Review 60 (2): 295–412.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Andrew. 1990. Bush to Formalize Shield for Chinese in U.S. New York Times, April 7.Google Scholar
Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 1993. Constitutional Positivism. Connecticut Law Review 25 (797): 824–25.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2003. The Agendas of Comparative Constitutionalism. Law & Courts 13 (2): 5–22.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter. 1998. Citizens, Strangers and In - Betweens: Essays on Immigration and Citizenship. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1981. Courts: A Comparative Political Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin, and Stone Sweet, Alan. 2002. On Law, Politics and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Showler, Peter. 2010. Proposed Refugee Reforms May Be a Step Towards a Faster, Fairer System. News Release, March 30. http://www.cdp-hrc.uottawa.ca/projects/refugee-forum/PressReleaseRefugeeReform.php (accessed January 19, 2012).Google Scholar
Soennecken, Dagmar. 2008. The Growing Influence of the Courts Over the Fate of Refugees. Review of European and Russian Affairs 4 (2): 55–88.Google Scholar
Sossin, Lorne. 2004. The Politics of Soft Law: How Judicial Decisions Influence Bureaucratic Discretion in Canada. In Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Hertogh, Marc and Halliday, Simon, 129–60. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu. 1994. Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spiro, Peter. 2007. Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Richard. 2003. Administrative Law in the Twenty-First Century. New York University Law Review 78:437–60.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec. 1999. Judicialization and the Construction of Governance. Comparative Political Studies 32 (2): 147–84.Google Scholar
Taylor, Lesley Ciarula. 2008. Refugees Seek Avenue for Appeal; Critics Push Parliament on Passing Legislation to Reform System for Failed Applicants. Toronto Star, August 20.Google Scholar
Toronto Star. 2010a. False Refugees Face Swift Kick Out Door. Toronto Star, March 31.Google Scholar
Toronto Star. 2010b. Tories Reach Deal with NDP, Bloc on Refugee Reform; Abuses of Immigration System Addressed in Legislation. Toronto Star, June 11.Google Scholar
UNHCR. 2010. Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: UNHCR.Google Scholar
Weiner, Tim. 1993. Smuggled to New York: Fixing Immigration. New York Times, June 8.Google Scholar
Williams, George. 2010. PM Would Be Wise Not to Play Catch-Up with High Court. Sydney Morning Herald, November 24.Google Scholar
Zhang, Sheldon. 2007. Smuggling and Trafficking in Human Beings: All Roads Lead to America. Santa Barbara , CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Applicant A v. Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs, 190 CLR 225 (HCA 1997).Google Scholar
Bodruddaza v. MIMA, 228 CLR 651(HCA 2007).Google Scholar
Chan Yee Kin v. Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs, 169 CLR 379 (HCA 1989).Google Scholar
Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Chen Shi Hai v. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, 201 CLR 293 (HCA 2000).Google Scholar
Cheung v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), 2 F.C. 314 (1993).Google Scholar
Chevron v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (SC 1984).Google Scholar
Decision TA4-10802 & TA4-10803 (Persuasive Decision, In Private), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 24 February 2005.Google Scholar
Decision TA4-18833 (Persuasive Decision, In Private), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 27 February 2006.Google Scholar
Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (SC 2006).Google Scholar
He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
Huang v. Ashcroft, 113 Fed. Appx. 695 (6th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (SC 2002).Google Scholar
Kozak v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), FCA 124; 4 F.C.R. 377 (2006).Google Scholar
Li v. Ashcroft, 82 F. Appx. 357 (5th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
Matter of Chang, 20 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1989).Google Scholar
Matter of C-Y-Z, Applicant, 21 I&N Dec. 915 (BIA 1997).Google Scholar
Plaintiff M61 & Plaintiff M69 v Commonwealth of Australia, HCA 41 (2010).Google Scholar
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia, 211 CLR 476 (HCA 2003).Google Scholar
SAAP v. MIMIA, 228 CLR 294 (HCA 2005).Google Scholar
Shi Liang Lin v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
Singh v. Minister of Employment & Immigration, 1 S.C.R. 177 (CSC 1985).Google Scholar
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (SC 2001).Google Scholar
Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
Zhu v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar