Abstract
Abstract Assessing claims for refugee status is a task often riddled with uncertainties, not least because of the challenge of establishing the credibility of the claims. The uncertainties enable divergent interpretations of both evidence and legal rules, thereby constituting a space for discretion in the refugee status determination process. This article explores how decision makers in the Norwegian asylum system reached a conviction about the outcome of asylum claims, despite numerous uncertainties. Decision makers who worked closely together developed a system of distinction that enabled them to single out applicants with protection needs from those who were not considered to be eligible. This system ordered the space for discretion, thereby reducing doubts about the outcome. It was based on the law and other formal sources, but also on recognizing patterns of difference and similarity with previous decisions. The emphasis on comparison between cases meant that the outcome of an individual application could not be understood in isolation; the distinctions between applicants who were accepted and those who were rejected depended, in part, on the case set as a whole. The findings suggest that, in a context of uncertainty, refugee status is to some extent determined by producing a local yardstick of who ‘the refugee’ is.
Highlights
The unsettling truth is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, one will never know whether the decision was right or wrong
Decision makers who worked closely together developed a system of distinction that enabled them to single out applicants with protection needs from those who were not considered to be eligible
The large discrepancies between European countries in recognition rates for certain groups of applicants from the same country illustrate that often there is not an obvious answer as to who will be recognized as a refugee.[5]. One explanation for this is that even though Contracting States to the 1951 Refugee Convention base their legal frameworks on the same definition of the refugee,[6] the refugee status determination (RSD) process is organized in different ways in each national context, which may have significant implications for the way in which States assess eligibility for refugee status.[7]
Summary
The unsettling truth is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, one will never know whether the decision was right or wrong. The current article contributes, first, to the field of refugee studies by giving an account of the RSD process from an inside perspective, and by demonstrating the importance of local practices for understanding the way in which refugee status is determined Through their practices, decision makers who worked closely together established what can be termed a ‘system of distinction’ that enabled them to single out those who were deemed to be in need of protection from other applicants. Because of these basic similarities, the findings in this article are likely to be relevant to asylum decision making in other countries
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
