Contextualizing discretion : micro-dynamics of Canada’s refugee determination system

In an era where international immigration is increasingly difficult and selective, refugee status constitutes a valuable public good that enables some non-citizens access and membership to the host country. Based on the discretionary judgment of the decision-maker, refugee status is only granted to claimants who establish well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their home country. Canada’s largest independent administrative tribunal, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), is charged to hear refugee claimants and make refugee status determinations. This dissertation investigates why significant disparities exist among IRB’s politically appointed decision-makers’ refugee status grant rates.   As little was known about the concrete ways Canada allocates opportunities for entry and legal status for non-citizens, lifting the blanket of administration was necessary. By exploring refugee decision-making from a Street Level Bureaucracy Theory (SLBT) perspective, and an ethnographic methodology that combined direct observation, semi-structured interviews and document analysis, the study sought first to understand whether the variation in grant rates were a result of differences in decision-makers’ discretionary practices and reasoning and second to trace the organizational factors that foster variation.    In line with previous scholarship on SLBT that document how the work situation structure discretion and how individual views play in decision-making; this study demonstrates substantive differences among decision-makers in terms of their work routines, conceptions of refugee claimants and the best way to conduct their work. The analysis illustrates how decision-makers apply not a singular but a variety of approaches to the refugee hearing, ranging from rigid interrogation to the more resilient interview style. Despite clear organizational constraints on decision-makers that target to increase consistency and efficiency of refugee determinations, the significance of credibility-assessment and the invisibility of the decision-making space leave ample room for discretionary behavior.   Even in rule-saturated environments like administrative tribunals which extensively regulate discretion; decision-making hardly means neutral and hierarchical rule adherence. Instead discretion is nested within the context of interaction routines, work situation, rule adherence and law. It is inherently difficult if not improbable to control and discipline discretionary decision-making even in organizations that institutionalize and standardize training and communicate their demands clearly to decision-makers. When faced with goal ambiguity and with demands that they consider run against their discretionary authority, decision-makers reinterpret their job definition and routinize their practices. They formulate an encounter routine that is organizationally acceptable to assess the people in front of them. This dissertation illustrates how unevenly the claimants, their testimony and evidence are treated and how these treatments are reflected on the refugee decision.

Keyphrases: discrétion administrative, street-level bureaucracy, Canada, administrative discretion, administrative tribunals, street-level bureaucracy, refugee status determination, refugee decision-making, international human rights standards, policy implementation, bottom up approaches