Through interviews, observation of refugee hearings, the analysis of negative decisions rendered by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), and the application of communication, and social work theories, as well as discourse analysis, this study explores the effects of intercultural communication on the outcome of the refugee determination hearing. It is argued that a gap exists between the principle of cultural receptiveness at the IRB, and that which occurs in the hearing. This paradox is testimony to the difficulties of applying the international definition of a Convention Refugee to a socially and culturally-constructed refugee determination process. The political, social, and cultural context in which the IRB functions, the Board's institutional culture, which mirrors the social discourse on refugees, and the way individuals ascribe meaning to information in a culturally-defined manner, all have an impact on the outcome of the hearing, and in turn on refugee protection in Canada.

Administrative justice is traditionally considered as the main alternative to the criminal justice system when a certain illegality is decriminalized or not enforced by criminal justice institutions (e.g. the regulation of elite deviance, urban disorder, mental health, etc.). This doctoral thesis studies how the conflicts related to immigration are being managed in the largest administrative tribunal in Canada: the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). It asks how exactly does immigration justice, and administrative law more broadly, constitute an alternative to criminal justice in terms of social reaction, and what kinds of challenges does this alternative present for the study of social control. This research takes a qualitative approach based on documentary analysis and long-term ethnographic fieldwork conducted at the IRB between 2007 and 2009. It uses its own theoretical framework building on post-structural perspectives, including Bourdieu’s constructivist structuralism, governmentality and nodal governance studies, left realism and political economy of punishment. In the empirical part of the thesis, I present some of the characteristics of the legal translation of conflicts in immigration law, including the forms and logics of punishment involved and how immigration law is practiced at the tribunal. I argue that administrative adjudication and punishment differ substantially from criminal law regimes and I question the idea of criminalization (of immigration) as a category capable of nuancing the complexity of administrative forms of social reaction. Instead, I suggest that we should take these forms of punitive social reaction as they are, and study how they operate along, beyond and in addition to criminal law. I propose an integrated conception of the penal complex which works as a mobile (kinetic sculpture) and includes the criminal law realm, but also other normative systems that configure ‘less’ prominent locations of punishment playing an increasing role in social reaction. I conclude by proposing a new reading of selectivity of justice and penal policies, and consequently, a new agenda for criminology and criminologists. In this new agenda, the penal complex should be taken as a totality in order to promote broader and combined propositions for law reform and resistance to punitiveness.

The relationship amongst institutions has continued to play a pivotal role in shaping the nature of policies central to citizens and non-citizens alike. However, the phenomenon of influence and power that institutions constitutionally wield over one another in administrative agencies has been an increasing issue that is largely under-explored. More so, is the issue of installing legitimate regulatory mechanisms that ensure and preserve democratic values and practices that hold government agencies accountable. This study explores the relationship between judicial and executive institutions by examining the degree of influence the courts exercise in decisions in the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Using a precedent tracing approach, this study analyzes the presence and authority of Supreme Court decisions in the determination of refugee protection cases. As administrative bodies exercise a broad range of discretion and are loosely guided by ‘soft-laws’, it is unlikely that the courts would have a high degree of influence in such agencies due to an absence of obligation to do so. The shortage of judicial influence arguably offers a nuanced explanation to the inconsistent outcomes amongst board members and the absence of and requirement for a legitimate remedial mechanism. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

No description available.

This thesis analyzes the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)’s treatment of culture in recent family sponsorship decisions. Drawing upon theories of cultural difference, identity construction, and Critical Race Theory, it examines IRB decision-makers’ assessments of cultural factors and their influence on the evaluation of parties’ credibility. This thesis argues that appellants and applicants before the Immigration Appeal Division often had to demonstrate that their family class relationships were “performed” in accordance with the norms of their culture. Many IRB Members relied on essentialist conceptions of culture, and thus generated problematic images of both cultural minorities and Canadian society. Further, the identity of parties was often constructed in terms of defined categories such as ethnic background, religion, marital status, age, and disability. In conclusion, this thesis offers reflections on how issues of cultural identity can be more fairly and sensitively addressed by administrative tribunals such as the IRB.

This thesis analyzes the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)’s treatment of culture in recent family sponsorship decisions. Drawing upon theories of cultural difference, identity construction, and Critical Race Theory, it examines IRB decision-makers’ assessments of cultural factors and their influence on the evaluation of parties’ credibility. This thesis argues that appellants and applicants before the Immigration Appeal Division often had to demonstrate that their family class relationships were “performed” in accordance with the norms of their culture. Many IRB Members relied on essentialist conceptions of culture, and thus generated problematic images of both cultural minorities and Canadian society. Further, the identity of parties was often constructed in terms of defined categories such as ethnic background, religion, marital status, age, and disability. In conclusion, this thesis offers reflections on how issues of cultural identity can be more fairly and sensitively addressed by administrative tribunals such as the IRB.

Le Canada accepte des demandes d’asile sur la base de l'orientation sexuelle depuis plus de 20 ans. Quoi qu’il en soit, cette recherche permet de douter du fait que les demandes sur la base de l’orientation sexuelle déposées par des femmes soient traitées de façon adéquate. Pour garantir l’accès à la protection des femmes appartenant à des minorités sexuelles, une analyse du risque de persécution fondé sur l'orientation sexuelle doit incorporer des considérations de genre ainsi que divers autres facteurs d’ordre social et culturel. À partir d’une étude de cas de demandes du statut de refugié déposées par des femmes sur la base de l’orientation sexuelle et rejetées par la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié entre 2010 et 2013, cette recherche identifie des procédés décisionnels problématiques qui font obstacle au droit d’asile de ces femmes. Les résultats de cette étude révèlent qu’une analyse intersectionnelle, laquelle prend acte des formes variées et multiples de l’oppression dans un contexte social donné, est d’importance cruciale pour une évaluation éclairée et non tronquée des risques de persécution pour les minorités sexuelles féminines. À la lumière de ces résultats, ce mémoire propose qu’une analyse intersectionnelle accompagne une nécessaire formation pour les membres de la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada sur des questions particulières à des minorités sexuelles. / Canada has accepted refugee claims on the basis of sexual orientation for more than 20 years; however, research suggests that claims brought by women on the basis of sexual orientation have not always received fair adjudication. To ensure equitable access to protection for sexual minority women, an analysis of their risk of persecution must incorporate gender and other social and cultural factors that influence their experiences. Based on a case study of claims brought by women on the basis of sexual orientation between 2010 and 2013, which were subsequently rejected by the Canadian Immigration and Refugee board, this research identifies decision making that poses obstacles to sexual minority women’s access to refugee protection. The findings from this case study demonstrate that an intersectional analysis, which considers various forms of oppression within a particular social context, is crucial to a complete and informed assessment of the risk of persecution for sexual minority women. In light of these findings, this paper proposes that an intersectional analysis accompany continued training for Immigration and Refugee Board members on issues particular to sexual minorities.