File #2707: "2019_Book_AsylumDeterminationInEurope.pdf"
Testo
1|Acknowledgements|7
1|Contents|8
1|Notes on Contributors|10
1|List of Figures|15
1|1 Introduction|16
2|Asylum as a Moral Panic|16
2|The Asylum System ‘in Crisis’|18
2|The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Perspective|22
2|Legal and Ethnographic Approaches to Asylum|30
2|Approaching Asylum Determination Ethnographically|33
2|References|37
1|2 Legal Overview|42
2|Introduction|42
2|International and European Law Framework|43
2|The Asylum Procedure: Determining Refugee—Or Subsidiary Protection Status|48
2|Actors|49
2|Communication|51
2|Decision Making|53
2|Standard and Burden of Proof|53
2|Evidentiary Assessment|54
2|Procedural Norms for the Assessment of Evidence (Article 4 QDI; QDII)|55
2|Credibility Assessment|56
2|Article 4(2) the Duty to Co-operate|57
2|Judicial Remedies|58
2|Final Remarks|60
2|References|61
1|Part I Actors|65
1|3 The “Inner Belief” of French Asylum Judges|66
2|Introduction|66
2|The Appeal’s Path|69
2|Seeing or Not Seeing the Refugee|73
2|Emotional Judges|75
2|Asylum as a Value|77
2|The Moral Certainty of Defending Asylum|78
2|References|80
1|4 “It’s All About Naming Things Right”: The Paradox of Web Truths in the Belgian Asylum-Seeking Procedure|82
2|Introduction|82
2|Globalisation, the EU and the Diversification of Diversity|83
2|Asylum, Institutional Encounters and the Authority of the Web|85
2|The Belgian Asylum Procedure|86
2|Method|88
2|Bashir’s Asylum Application|90
2|A Chat with Bashir’s Roommate|94
2|It Is All About Naming Things Right|97
2|Conclusions|99
2|References|101
1|5 The World of Home Office Presenting Officers|104
2|Introduction|104
2|The Role and Work of HOPOs|105
2|Litigating Appeals|110
2|Case 1. First Tier Asylum Appeal of HZ|110
2|Case 2. Second Stage Reconsideration Appeal of AK|113
2|The Views of Immigration Judges About HOPOs|118
2|Conclusion|120
2|References|121
1|6 Asylum Procedures in Greece: The Case of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors|122
2|Introduction|122
2|Greece’s Record on Refugee Protection|125
2|From Refugees to Clandestines|128
2|The Perception of Unaccompanied Minors in the Humanitarian Context|129
2|The Field Sites|131
2|Childhood as Linear and Universal|133
2|Separated Children as Dependent Burdens|135
2|Separated Children as Undeserving|137
2|Conclusion|138
2|References|140
1|Part II Communication|144
1|7 Why Handling Power Responsibly Matters: The Active Interpreter Through the Sociological Lens|145
2|Introduction|145
2|The Asylum Procedure in Austria and the Interpreter-Mediated Interview|148
2|Discussion of Findings|150
3|Officials’ Perspectives on Working Together with Interpreters|150
4|Quality of Work as an Aspect of Professionalism|151
4|The Interpreter as a Resource and Cooperation as a Game of Power|153
3|Active Interventions in the Interaction|154
4|Professional Attitudes: Managing the Communication Situation|156
4|Unprofessional Attitudes: Over-Cooperating with the Official|157
4|Unprofessional Attitudes: Not Taking the Job and the Asylum Claimant Seriously|159
2|Conclusion: Learning to Handle Power Responsibly|161
2|References|163
1|8 Communicative Practices and Contexts of Interaction in the Refugee Status Determination Process in France|167
2|Introduction|167
2|Ethnography, Communicative Practice and Contexts of Interaction|168
2|Determining Refugee Status in France|171
2|Admissibility Interviews at the Border|175
2|Asylum Interviews and Appeal Hearings|178
2|Offices and Corridors|181
2|Conclusion|183
2|References|185
1|9 Narrating Asylum in Camp and at Court|187
2|Introduction|187
2|A Narrative Approach|189
2|Methods|190
2|Legal Context and Background|191
2|The Trajectory of the Asylum Motive|193
2|The Circulation of Asylum Talk at the Camp|196
2|Asylum Narratives at the RAB|200
2|Conclusion|203
2|References|203
1|10 Interactions and Identities in UK Asylum Appeals: Lawyers and Law in a Quasi-Legal Setting|207
2|Introduction|207
2|The UK Asylum System|209
2|Methodology: Studying Lawyers in Asylum Appeals|211
2|Lawyering in a Hostile Environment|215
2|‘If They Like You, It Helps’: Personal Relationships and the Significance of Being Local|216
2|‘We Recognise Our Own’: Professional Relationships and the Significance of Being a Lawyer|220
2|Conclusion|225
2|References|227
1|Part III Decision-Making|231
1|11 What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Credibility? Refugee Appeals in Italy|232
2|Introduction|232
2|A Prequel|234
2|At the Tribunal|237
2|So, What Does Credibility Mean?|241
2|Beyond Credibility|244
2|References|248
1|12 Making the Right Decision: Justice in the Asylum Bureaucracy in Norway|252
2|Introduction|252
2|Uncertainty and Discretion in the Decision-Making Process|253
2|Justice in Decision-Making|255
2|Equal Treatment: Creating Local Justice?|257
2|The Production of Cases|261
2|Deferred Justice? The Role of the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE)|263
2|The Media Debate: Criticism and the Production of Certainty|266
2|Discussion|269
2|References|270
1|13 Taking the ‘Just’ Decision: Caseworkers and Their Communities of Interpretation in the Swiss Asylum Office|274
2|Introduction|274
2|Tracing the ‘Just Decision’|277
2|What ‘Correctness’ Means|279
2|Negotiating ‘Fairness’|283
2|Communities of Interpretation|287
2|Conclusion|291
2|References|292
1|14 Becoming a Decision-Maker, or: “Don’t Turn Your Heart into a Den of Thieves and Murderers”|296
2|Introduction|296
2|Fieldwork and Methods|298
2|The Asylum-Administrative Setting in Germany|299
2|Organised Detachment|302
2|“Don’t Turn Your Heart into a Den of Thieves and Murderers”|305
2|Learning How to Interview|305
2|Learning How to Write Decisions|309
2|Conclusions and Outlook|311
2|References|313
1|15 Conclusion|318
2|Fairness and Efficiency|323
2|Consistency and Variety|325
2|References|327
1|Index|330
1|Contents|8
1|Notes on Contributors|10
1|List of Figures|15
1|1 Introduction|16
2|Asylum as a Moral Panic|16
2|The Asylum System ‘in Crisis’|18
2|The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Perspective|22
2|Legal and Ethnographic Approaches to Asylum|30
2|Approaching Asylum Determination Ethnographically|33
2|References|37
1|2 Legal Overview|42
2|Introduction|42
2|International and European Law Framework|43
2|The Asylum Procedure: Determining Refugee—Or Subsidiary Protection Status|48
2|Actors|49
2|Communication|51
2|Decision Making|53
2|Standard and Burden of Proof|53
2|Evidentiary Assessment|54
2|Procedural Norms for the Assessment of Evidence (Article 4 QDI; QDII)|55
2|Credibility Assessment|56
2|Article 4(2) the Duty to Co-operate|57
2|Judicial Remedies|58
2|Final Remarks|60
2|References|61
1|Part I Actors|65
1|3 The “Inner Belief” of French Asylum Judges|66
2|Introduction|66
2|The Appeal’s Path|69
2|Seeing or Not Seeing the Refugee|73
2|Emotional Judges|75
2|Asylum as a Value|77
2|The Moral Certainty of Defending Asylum|78
2|References|80
1|4 “It’s All About Naming Things Right”: The Paradox of Web Truths in the Belgian Asylum-Seeking Procedure|82
2|Introduction|82
2|Globalisation, the EU and the Diversification of Diversity|83
2|Asylum, Institutional Encounters and the Authority of the Web|85
2|The Belgian Asylum Procedure|86
2|Method|88
2|Bashir’s Asylum Application|90
2|A Chat with Bashir’s Roommate|94
2|It Is All About Naming Things Right|97
2|Conclusions|99
2|References|101
1|5 The World of Home Office Presenting Officers|104
2|Introduction|104
2|The Role and Work of HOPOs|105
2|Litigating Appeals|110
2|Case 1. First Tier Asylum Appeal of HZ|110
2|Case 2. Second Stage Reconsideration Appeal of AK|113
2|The Views of Immigration Judges About HOPOs|118
2|Conclusion|120
2|References|121
1|6 Asylum Procedures in Greece: The Case of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors|122
2|Introduction|122
2|Greece’s Record on Refugee Protection|125
2|From Refugees to Clandestines|128
2|The Perception of Unaccompanied Minors in the Humanitarian Context|129
2|The Field Sites|131
2|Childhood as Linear and Universal|133
2|Separated Children as Dependent Burdens|135
2|Separated Children as Undeserving|137
2|Conclusion|138
2|References|140
1|Part II Communication|144
1|7 Why Handling Power Responsibly Matters: The Active Interpreter Through the Sociological Lens|145
2|Introduction|145
2|The Asylum Procedure in Austria and the Interpreter-Mediated Interview|148
2|Discussion of Findings|150
3|Officials’ Perspectives on Working Together with Interpreters|150
4|Quality of Work as an Aspect of Professionalism|151
4|The Interpreter as a Resource and Cooperation as a Game of Power|153
3|Active Interventions in the Interaction|154
4|Professional Attitudes: Managing the Communication Situation|156
4|Unprofessional Attitudes: Over-Cooperating with the Official|157
4|Unprofessional Attitudes: Not Taking the Job and the Asylum Claimant Seriously|159
2|Conclusion: Learning to Handle Power Responsibly|161
2|References|163
1|8 Communicative Practices and Contexts of Interaction in the Refugee Status Determination Process in France|167
2|Introduction|167
2|Ethnography, Communicative Practice and Contexts of Interaction|168
2|Determining Refugee Status in France|171
2|Admissibility Interviews at the Border|175
2|Asylum Interviews and Appeal Hearings|178
2|Offices and Corridors|181
2|Conclusion|183
2|References|185
1|9 Narrating Asylum in Camp and at Court|187
2|Introduction|187
2|A Narrative Approach|189
2|Methods|190
2|Legal Context and Background|191
2|The Trajectory of the Asylum Motive|193
2|The Circulation of Asylum Talk at the Camp|196
2|Asylum Narratives at the RAB|200
2|Conclusion|203
2|References|203
1|10 Interactions and Identities in UK Asylum Appeals: Lawyers and Law in a Quasi-Legal Setting|207
2|Introduction|207
2|The UK Asylum System|209
2|Methodology: Studying Lawyers in Asylum Appeals|211
2|Lawyering in a Hostile Environment|215
2|‘If They Like You, It Helps’: Personal Relationships and the Significance of Being Local|216
2|‘We Recognise Our Own’: Professional Relationships and the Significance of Being a Lawyer|220
2|Conclusion|225
2|References|227
1|Part III Decision-Making|231
1|11 What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Credibility? Refugee Appeals in Italy|232
2|Introduction|232
2|A Prequel|234
2|At the Tribunal|237
2|So, What Does Credibility Mean?|241
2|Beyond Credibility|244
2|References|248
1|12 Making the Right Decision: Justice in the Asylum Bureaucracy in Norway|252
2|Introduction|252
2|Uncertainty and Discretion in the Decision-Making Process|253
2|Justice in Decision-Making|255
2|Equal Treatment: Creating Local Justice?|257
2|The Production of Cases|261
2|Deferred Justice? The Role of the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE)|263
2|The Media Debate: Criticism and the Production of Certainty|266
2|Discussion|269
2|References|270
1|13 Taking the ‘Just’ Decision: Caseworkers and Their Communities of Interpretation in the Swiss Asylum Office|274
2|Introduction|274
2|Tracing the ‘Just Decision’|277
2|What ‘Correctness’ Means|279
2|Negotiating ‘Fairness’|283
2|Communities of Interpretation|287
2|Conclusion|291
2|References|292
1|14 Becoming a Decision-Maker, or: “Don’t Turn Your Heart into a Den of Thieves and Murderers”|296
2|Introduction|296
2|Fieldwork and Methods|298
2|The Asylum-Administrative Setting in Germany|299
2|Organised Detachment|302
2|“Don’t Turn Your Heart into a Den of Thieves and Murderers”|305
2|Learning How to Interview|305
2|Learning How to Write Decisions|309
2|Conclusions and Outlook|311
2|References|313
1|15 Conclusion|318
2|Fairness and Efficiency|323
2|Consistency and Variety|325
2|References|327
1|Index|330