The Complexity of Determining Refugeehood: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Decision-making Process of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board

Abstract

Refugee determination is one of the most complex adjudication functions in industrialized societies. In Canada, despite a relatively broad recognition rate and a teleological interpretation of the international refugee definition, dissatisfaction with the decision-making process at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has been expressed by numerous actors. This paper documents the influence of legal, psychological and cultural factors on the process of refugee determination. Forty problematic cases referred to the research team by professionals were studied using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The results indicate numerous problems affecting the role and behaviour of all actors: difficulties in evaluating evidence, assessing credibility, and conducting hearings; problems in coping with vicarious traumatization and uncontrolled emotional reactions; poor knowledge of the political context, false representations of war, and cultural misunderstandings or insensitivity. In a majority of cases, these legal, psychological and cultural dimensions interact together, often impacting negatively upon Board Members' ability to evaluate credibility and upon the overall conduct of hearings. These findings suggest that the refugee determination process might benefit from revised selection criteria for Board Members and refugee claim officers, as well as improved training and support for all actors.

Perceptions of Credibility for a Memory Report of a Single Versus Repeated Event

“…The pattern continues across the globe, in the United States (48%; Anker, 1992), Germany (75%; UNHCR, 2013), Egypt (77%; Kagan, 2003), and Canada (90%; Rousseau, 2002), where rejections were attributed to unfavorable outcomes of the credibility assessment.…”

Trauma, exile and mental health in young refugees

“…This increases the risk of rejection of the asylum application for those who have been exposed to some of the worst forms of human rights abuse, that is, torture victims. This risk can be further increased owing to misunderstandings because of different cultural references, lack of knowledge of common trauma reactions, gender stereotypes or, simply, poor interview techniques or poor translations (127)(128)(129). Thus, including an assessment by a health professional would create a better basis for the decision-making process in asylum cases where human rights abuse is involved (130).…”

Review of Refugee Mental Health Assessment: Best Practices and Recommendations

“…In reviewing already decided cases, they uncovered a number of issues including: 'difficulties in evaluating evidence, assessing credibility, and conducting hearings; problems in coping with vicarious traumatisation and uncontrolled emotional reactions; poor knowledge of the political context, false representations of war, and cultural misunderstandings or insensitivity' (Rousseau et al, 2002, p. 43). Kirmayer (2003) re-analysed some of the examples of Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board hearings Rousseau et al (2002) provided where, under procedures for tendering information and subsequently cross-examination, doubt was cast on refugees' accounts of their experiences. According to Kirmayer, board hearings seek evidence in the form of a 'fixed, reliable, and reproducible account of historically verifiable events' (p. 170) based on information provided in claimants' Personal Information Forms relating to their 'language, nationality, ethnic group, religion, education, military service, work history, travel, prior claims for refugee status and any crimes or offences' (p. 173).…”