The method and extent of incorporation of international law obligations – are they directly or indirectly incorporated into general migration legislation or into a purpose-specific statute? Are all relevant treaty obligations specifically incorporated? Have treaty obligations been modified by legislation?

Is a distinction made in incorporating legislation between asylum seekers and refugees, that is between those who arrive spontaneously and those who come under a resettlement programme? In relation to those who arrive spontaneously, are distinctions made according to the route taken or the method of arrival? Are the international law obligations incorporated equally for all classes of persons?

Which institution is responsible for the initial decision as to status? Does the legislation confer additional discretions or personal residuary powers on an administrative decision maker which qualify the international law obligations?

What is the institutional framework for decision making after the initial decision as to status? That is, is it administrative or adjudicative, judicial or quasi-judicial?

What are the opportunities for appeal or judicial review in this institutional framework? What proportion of initial applications proceed to judicial review? What type of issues are heard on judicial review? What are the outcomes of each category of issue on judicial review?

What is the response of the executive government to the outcomes from judicial review? That is, does it modify previous policy or practices, or increase the restrictiveness of its approach in response to significant judicial determinations?

What is the constitutional basis of jurisdiction in this context? Is that jurisdiction an entrenched/plenary jurisdiction? Is primacy accorded to constitutional rights as distinct from statutory rights in the national legal system?

[…]