Troubling patterns in Canadian refugee adjudication.

• Author: Rehaag, Sean

This article uses data obtained from Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] to calculate the refugee claim grant rates of individual IRB adjudicators. The data reveals that, in 2006, grant rates varied significantly across adjudicators. Some adjudicators accorded refugee status in virtually all cases they heard; others granted refugee status rarely, "if at all. The article explores several explanations offered by the IRB for refugee claim grant rate variations. These explanations relate to patterns in case assignment due to adjudicator specialization in particular types of cases from particular regions of the world. The author contends that while patterns in case assignment do affect grant rates, they do not account for the full variations evident in the data. Rather, outcomes in refugee adjudication appear to hinge, at least in part, on the identity of the adjudicator assigned.

The author draws three main conclusions from the data on refugee adjudication in 2006. First, further empirical research should be undertaken to verify the results of the study and to identify specific features of adjudicator identity that affect refugee claim outcomes. Second', the appointment process for IRB adjudicators should be carefully scrutinized in light of grant rate disparities. Third, given both the grant rate disparities and the life and death stakes involved in refugee adjudication, it is imperative there be opportunities to meaningfully review negative first instance refugee determinations. To this end, the government should immediately implement the provisions in Canada's immigration legislation that establish a Refugee Appeal Division at the IRB.

Cet article calcule le taux d'accueil des revendications du statut de refugie par arbitre a l'aide de donnees de la Commission d'immigration et du statut de refugie [CISR]. Cette etude revele que l'acceptation des revendications, en 2006, variait sensiblement d'un arbitre a l'autre; cergains accordaient presque invariablement le statut de refugie, alors que d'autres le faisaient rarement, voire meme jamais. L'article examine diverses explications de ces variances fournies par la CISR. Celles-ci ont trait a la repartition du travail en tenant compte de la specialisation des arbitres pour certains types de dossiers provenant de certaines regions du monde. Tout en recormaissant que ce facteur puisse jouer dans le taux d'accueil des revendications du statut de refugie, l'auteur soutient que cela n'explique pas totalement la grande variance observee dans les decisions rendues. Il semble que l'identite de l'arbitre qui etudie le dossier y joue une part egalement.

L'auteur tire trois grandes conclusions a partir des donnees d'arbitrage de 2006 en matiere du statut de refugie. Premierement, il faudrait entreprendre d'autres recherches empiriques afin de verifier les resultats de cette etude et de cerner certains traits de l'identite de l'arbitre qui influent sur la decision d'accorder ou non le statut de refugie. Deuxiemement, il y aurait lieu d'analvser attentivement la procedure de nomination des arbitres a la CISR en tenant compte de la grande disparite dans les decisions. Troisiemement, etant donne la grande disparite dans les decisions et les enjeux de vie et de mort lies a l'arbitrage en matiere du statut de refugie, il est imperatif de prevoir des mecanismes valables pour le controle des determinations negatives au premier palier. A. cette fin, le gouvernement devrait immediatement mettre en oeuvre les dispositions de la loi canadienne sur l'immigration relativement a la creation d'une Section d'appel des refugies a la CISR.

Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. IRB REFUGEE DETERMINATIONS III. THE METHODOLOGY OF THE CURRENT STUDY IV. GRANT RATES OF IRB ADJUDICATORS V. IRB EXPLANATIONS FOR DIVERGENT GRANT RATES VI. EVALUATING EXPLANATIONS FOR DIVERGENT GRANT RATES A. Expedited Claims B. Regional Specialization C. Case Type Specialization D. Variations Across IRB Offices VII. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY A. Extraneous Factors in Refugee Adjudication B. The IRB Appointments Process C. The Refugee Appeal Division VIII. CONCLUSION APPENDIX I I. INTRODUCTION

In 2004, a widely discussed newspaper article raised concerns regarding differential refugee claim grant rates among adjudicators at Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (1) The article noted that some adjudicators granted refugee status in over 80% of the refugee claims they heard, whereas others denied all the claims they heard. According to the article: "Immigration and refugee lawyers say what they term the wild variation in ... acceptance rates is unacceptable and underscores the fact that some of these political appointees make life-and-death decisions in an arbitrary manner." (2) In response to these allegations, a spokesperson for the IRB suggested:

[T]he variation in acceptance rates can be explained, in part, by the fact that members specialize in certain regions.... Some individuals with a high volume of positive cases ... preside over "expedited or fast-track" cases from war-torn countries that are accepted by a case officer and then approved by board members. (3) The present article assesses these divergent understandings of the large disparities in refugee adjudicators' grant rates through a study of recent data obtained from the IRB. The article begins by briefly outlining the refugee determination process at the IRB to provide a context for the study. It then sets out the methodology through which the data for the study was obtained. Next, it presents the data, highlighting the dramatic variations it reveals in the grant rates of refugee adjudicators. The article then evaluates the arguments related to selective case assignment put forward by the IRB to explain grant rate variations and concludes that patterns in case assignment fail to account for the full variations evident in the data. Instead, the divergent grant rates appear to result, at least in part, from factors unrelated to the merits of refugee claims, namely, the identity of refugee adjudicators. Finally, the article explores several implications of the study's central finding that refugee determinations in Canada appear to hinge to some degree on the identity of the adjudicators assigned to particular claims.

2. IRB REFUGEE DETERMINATIONS

   Canada has developed a complex refugee determination system to meet its obligations under both international refugee law and Canadian constitutional law. (4) The most important step in that system is a refugee hearing at the IRB. (5) When IRB adjudicators--known as "Board Members"--preside over hearings, their primary responsibility is to determine whether claimants meet the refugee definition set out in Canada's immigration legislation. (6) According to this definition, a refugee is:

   [A] person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries. (7) It is worth noting that there are extremely serious consequences to IRB determinations regarding whether claimants meet the refugee definition. On the one hand, a large number of false positive decisions could put the entire refugee determination system at risk. In particular, reports of false positive decisions may foster popular perceptions that the refugee determination system is vulnerable to abuse from economically motivated migrants seeking to circumvent regular immigration procedures. This could lead to calls for further limiting access to refugee protection in order to protect the ability of the government to set and enforce immigration policy. (8)

   On the other hand, the possible consequences of false negative refugee decisions are even more severe. False negative decisions leave individuals who, in fact, meet the refugee definition vulnerable to deportation to countries where they face persecution, torture, or even death. (9) Indeed, these possible consequences are so severe that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that refugee determinations engage refugee claimants' constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (10) Furthermore, the severe consequences of false negative refugee determinations accrue not only to the individuals whose claims are wrongly denied, but also to the Canadian government. More specifically, deporting individuals who, in fact, meet the refugee definition may violate international refugee law. (11) Therefore, Canada is at risk of breaching international law when erroneous negative refugee determinations cause individuals who meet the refugee definition to be vulnerable to deportation.

   Given the immense stakes at play in refugee decisions, the IRB has been structured as an independent administrative tribunal. (12) Board Members, who are appointed by the Governor in Council. (13) hold office for a set term, during which time they can only be removed with cause. (14) This security of tenure ensures that Board Members presiding over refugee hearings are able to assess whether individuals meet the refugee definition without undue government interference. (15) Such independence is particularly significant, considering that governments may be reluctant to recognize refugees from certain countries due to strong financial or diplomatic pressure from abroad, or due to domestic political considerations. (16)

   While the independence of Board Members offers important protections against inappropriate government interference in refugee adjudication, this independence sometimes makes it difficult for the IRB to achieve another key policy objective: consistency across refugee determinations made by different Board Members. (17) It goes without saying that outcomes of...