The social organization of Canada's inland refugee determination system is explored in this institutional ethnographic study. First listening to refugee claimants' experience from their vantagepoint on the margins of society, the research then explicates the complementary social relations of the refugee determination system in order to examine the contributing social organization and underlying ideology of the politico-administrative system. Three adult, English-speaking single Nigerian men, seeking Convention refugee status or permanent resident status, were interviewed. Phenomenological methods were utilized to analyze the data. An initial explication of the social relations of the system was conducted through the observation of refugee determination hearings and interviews with knowledgeable informants. Through these interviews and textual analysis, ideology at the politico-administrative level was explored. The findings reveal a contradiction between refugees' expectations based on Canada's international reputation in refugee protection and support of democratic rights, and their reception in Canada. Refugee claimants spoke of their dual experience as characterized by exclusion and marginalization from Canadian society at the very time that they needed to reconstruct their sense of self and adapt; of being held suspect as 'criminals' and 'illegals' by the refugee determination system until proven 'genuine'. Inclusion depended on success in the socially, culturally, and politically constructed Canadian refugee determination system; a process that was foreign to them. Comprehension and successful participation in this process depended in part on the support, resources, and information they accessed during their initial settlement period. The organization of the refugee determination system with a focus on the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) revealed complex independent decision-making in a highly decentralized, but hierarchical and non-transparent administrative system. Inconsistencies in decision making and in the degree to which refugees had the opportunity to relate their experience in refugee determination hearings were articulated and observed. Aspects of the system such as selection of members, institutional culture, independence of the IRB, and discourse on refugees in the Canadian media and society were indicators of how the social relations of the system were organized by an underlying ideology. Implications for the profession of social work and for social change were examined.

This study seeks to examine the naturalisation of refugees under international law with specific focus on the South African refugee system. The universalised nature of human rights and the difficulties of refugees finding new roots in host states form the basis of this study. This study takes a closer look at the South African refugee system and the path to naturalisation of refugees. It identifies policy and legal gaps in the process of naturalisation of refugees and argues that the practice as it stands today, fundamentally abuses the rights of refugees and questions South Africa’s good faith in meeting its international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. It argues further that the biopolitical philosophy upon which South African citizenship is anchored is itself a hindrance to the realisation of efforts aimed at naturalising refugees and their descendants. The research methodology used in this study is non-empirical. This is so because the study is based on available data, information already available in print or on the internet. The study attempts to accomplish the above by undertaking an in-depth analysis of the history of refugees, the current position of naturalisation under international law, and identifies the inherent challenges. In the South African context, the study makes use of extensive statutory, constitutional and case law materials to justify that the current treatment of refugees in their quest for naturalisation is indefensible within the context of a human rights-based approach and the dictates of the Constitution. This study concludes by making recommendations that would help close the legal and policy gaps that obtain presently. These include amendments to the Refugees, Immigration and Citizenship Acts and strengthening policy implementation at the DHA. It is hoped that the recommendations will strengthen and evolve a human rights culture and bring refugee, immigration and citizenship laws in line with the Constitution. It will also pave the way for a more just and peaceful South Africa as she strives to meet her obligations under regional and international law.

Resettlement is one of three durable solutions, which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) uses to achieve refugee rotection. Refugees are assumed to locally integrate, voluntarily repatriate or resettle. Too many of the world's refugees, however, are left to linger in non-durable conditions in countries of first asylum that are often only minimally safer than the countries they have fled. Where neither local integration nor repatriation is possible, resettlement is the only option. Resettlement requires a third country to be willing to accept refugees into its territory. While signatory states to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) are obliged not to refoule asylum seekers at their borders, they have not committed to accept refugees for resettlement. By geographic distance, presumptions of safety, and a lack of legal obligations, those refugees who fail to make it to the frontiers of safe states are simply not seen. These refugees remain so far removed in a vague, far-off realm that they are rendered invisible. Their invisibility is reflected in the 1951 Convention's silence on obligations to them, the dearth of academic examination of resettlement, and media and government attention only in the celebratory act of making a small number of such refugees visible and legal, through the act of bringing them within a protective state's borders. Despite their invisibility, the protection needs of those refugees left outside the borders of safe states remains. The goals of this thesis are therefore to create visibility and increase resettlement. Resettlement is examined from its theoretical motivations, historical origins, current manipulations, and future possibilities - both generally and through an examination of the Canadian scheme. The thesis closes with recommendations for resettlement reform. They are targeted at UNHCR, the international community, national governments, and Canada in particular. For resettlement to offer a fair mode of protection a comprehensive and global model of resettlement must be designed and, ultimately, implemented. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

The social organization of Canada's inland refugee determination system is explored in this institutional ethnographic study. First listening to refugee claimants' experience from their vantagepoint on the margins of society, the research then explicates the complementary social relations of the refugee determination system in order to examine the contributing social organization and underlying ideology of the politico-administrative system. Three adult, English-speaking single Nigerian men, seeking Convention refugee status or permanent resident status, were interviewed. Phenomenological methods were utilized to analyze the data. An initial explication of the social relations of the system was conducted through the observation of refugee determination hearings and interviews with knowledgeable informants. Through these interviews and textual analysis, ideology at the politico-administrative level was explored. The findings reveal a contradiction between refugees' expectations based on Canada's international reputation in refugee protection and support of democratic rights, and their reception in Canada. Refugee claimants spoke of their dual experience as characterized by exclusion and marginalization from Canadian society at the very time that they needed to reconstruct their sense of self and adapt; of being held suspect as 'criminals' and 'illegals' by the refugee determination system until proven 'genuine'. Inclusion depended on success in the socially, culturally, and politically constructed Canadian refugee determination system; a process that was foreign to them. Comprehension and successful participation in this process depended in part on the support, resources, and information they accessed during their initial settlement period. The organization of the refugee determination system with a focus on the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) revealed complex independent decision-making in a highly decentralized, but hierarchical and non-transparent administrative system. Inconsistencies in decision making and in the degree to which refugees had the opportunity to relate their experience in refugee determination hearings were articulated and observed. Aspects of the system such as selection of members, institutional culture, independence of the IRB, and discourse on refugees in the Canadian media and society were indicators of how the social relations of the system were organized by an underlying ideology. Implications for the profession of social work and for social change were examined. / Arts, Faculty of / Social Work, School of / Graduate

The South African Refugees Act1 makes a distinction between an asylum seeker and a refugee. The Act defines an asylum seeker as “a person who is seeking recognition as a refugee in the Republic”. A refugee on the other hand, is a person “who has been granted asylum” in the Republic.2 The legal position in South Africa is that before a person is recognized as a refugee, he or she is protected by the Bill of Rights to a certain extent. In the case of Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs the Constitutional court confirmed that the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, including illegal foreigners and asylum seekers.3 This means that asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to most of the rights in the Constitution except those specifically reserved for citizens. Practically though, a refugee enjoys more rights than an asylum seeker. It is therefore in the interest of asylum seekers to have their status as refugees determined. The process of applying for refugee status can be a challenge for those seeking refuge in the Republic of South Africa. For applicants coming from non-English speaking countries, language barrier can also present its own challenges. In terms of the Refugees Act, the first application is to the Refugee Reception Officer at the refugee reception office. The application must be made in person.4 When an asylum seeker is deemed fit to qualify for asylum, he or she will be issued with a permit in terms of section 22 of the Refugees Act. The permit allows the asylum seeker to temporarily reside in South Africa until the finalisation of the asylum claim. This permit does not mean that the asylum seeker is already recognised as a refugee. The permit is an indication that the asylum seeker’s application as a refugee is not yet finalised. The application is considered finalised when it has gone through the hearing before the Status Determination Officer and any review or appeal following from that decision. It is the Refugee Status Determination Officer who will grant asylum or reject the application.5 For people applying for refugee status, the determination by the Status Determination Officer may in itself mark the beginning of the process to be repatriated back to the country they were running away from in the first place. An aggrieved applicant can also apply to have the adverse decision reviewed or even lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Refugees Act.6 For as long as the application is still pending, the government cannot deport any asylum seeker. An asylum seeker who enters the Republic of South Africa, either through a port of entry or illegally faces many challenges before he or she could reach a refugee reception office. Those who come in through a port of entry face being turned away by Immigration Officers due to lack of documentation. Often, asylum seekers find it hard to reach the refugee reception offices as there is no co-operation between the Immigration Officers, the South African Police Service and the functionaries in the refugee reception offices. To make things worse, the Immigration Amendment Act has reduced the days from fourteen to five, for asylum seekers without valid documentations to reach any refugee reception office. Since refugee reception offices are located only in five cities in the country, these have conditioned asylum seekers and refugees to stay and make their living in those cities as they are required to make frequent renewal of their permit. The closure of some of the refugee reception offices like the Johannesburg refugee reception office has caused a major concern to asylum seekers and refugees. This persistent closure of refugee reception offices may be seen as a further persecution in the eyes of asylum seekers and refugees. The inability of the different functionaries to differentiate between asylum seekers and economic migrants adds to the problem concerning the process of refugee status determination. Instead of seeking to identify people in need of protection from persecution or events seriously disturbing public order, the process is used as an immigration control and this causes more people to be turned away or returned to countries where their lives may be at risk. The communication between the asylum seeker and all the functionaries of the Department of Home Affairs is very important. The lack of professional interpretation functionaries to help asylum seekers who need interpretation contributes to the problems asylum seekers face. Often, asylum seekers have to provide their own interpreters if the Department is unable to do so. The purpose of the study is to investigate the status determination process from a South African perspective and to make recommendations which will try to resolve the problem(s) identified. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLM

The South African Refugees Act1 makes a distinction between an asylum seeker and a refugee. The Act defines an asylum seeker as “a person who is seeking recognition as a refugee in the Republic”. A refugee on the other hand, is a person “who has been granted asylum” in the Republic.2 The legal position in South Africa is that before a person is recognized as a refugee, he or she is protected by the Bill of Rights to a certain extent. In the case of Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs the Constitutional court confirmed that the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, including illegal foreigners and asylum seekers.3 This means that asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to most of the rights in the Constitution except those specifically reserved for citizens. Practically though, a refugee enjoys more rights than an asylum seeker. It is therefore in the interest of asylum seekers to have their status as refugees determined. The process of applying for refugee status can be a challenge for those seeking refuge in the Republic of South Africa. For applicants coming from non-English speaking countries, language barrier can also present its own challenges. In terms of the Refugees Act, the first application is to the Refugee Reception Officer at the refugee reception office. The application must be made in person.4 When an asylum seeker is deemed fit to qualify for asylum, he or she will be issued with a permit in terms of section 22 of the Refugees Act. The permit allows the asylum seeker to temporarily reside in South Africa until the finalisation of the asylum claim. This permit does not mean that the asylum seeker is already recognised as a refugee. The permit is an indication that the asylum seeker’s application as a refugee is not yet finalised. The application is considered finalised when it has gone through the hearing before the Status Determination Officer and any review or appeal following from that decision. It is the Refugee Status Determination Officer who will grant asylum or reject the application.5 For people applying for refugee status, the determination by the Status Determination Officer may in itself mark the beginning of the process to be repatriated back to the country they were running away from in the first place. An aggrieved applicant can also apply to have the adverse decision reviewed or even lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Refugees Act.6 For as long as the application is still pending, the government cannot deport any asylum seeker. An asylum seeker who enters the Republic of South Africa, either through a port of entry or illegally faces many challenges before he or she could reach a refugee reception office. Those who come in through a port of entry face being turned away by Immigration Officers due to lack of documentation. Often, asylum seekers find it hard to reach the refugee reception offices as there is no co-operation between the Immigration Officers, the South African Police Service and the functionaries in the refugee reception offices. To make things worse, the Immigration Amendment Act has reduced the days from fourteen to five, for asylum seekers without valid documentations to reach any refugee reception office. Since refugee reception offices are located only in five cities in the country, these have conditioned asylum seekers and refugees to stay and make their living in those cities as they are required to make frequent renewal of their permit. The closure of some of the refugee reception offices like the Johannesburg refugee reception office has caused a major concern to asylum seekers and refugees. This persistent closure of refugee reception offices may be seen as a further persecution in the eyes of asylum seekers and refugees. The inability of the different functionaries to differentiate between asylum seekers and economic migrants adds to the problem concerning the process of refugee status determination. Instead of seeking to identify people in need of protection from persecution or events seriously disturbing public order, the process is used as an immigration control and this causes more people to be turned away or returned to countries where their lives may be at risk. The communication between the asylum seeker and all the functionaries of the Department of Home Affairs is very important. The lack of professional interpretation functionaries to help asylum seekers who need interpretation contributes to the problems asylum seekers face. Often, asylum seekers have to provide their own interpreters if the Department is unable to do so. The purpose of the study is to investigate the status determination process from a South African perspective and to make recommendations which will try to resolve the problem(s) identified. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL. M.

This thesis addresses the problems related to the assessment of gender-based claims of persecution under the international definition of 'refugee'. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not list 'gender' as one of the persecution grounds that entitle a person to seek refuge. In attempting to solve this apparent dilemma, the 'membership of a particular social group' category was long considered to be the appropriate assessment framework. / While nowadays the other four enumerated Convention grounds---race, religion, nationality, and political opinion---have increasingly received regard, the approach to gender-based persecution has so far been neither systematic, nor consistent. Moreover, the most critical interpretative hurdles continue to arise in the context of the 'membership of a particular social group' category, / This study therefore examines the link between the two concepts of gender-based persecution and the 'membership of a particular social group' category. For this purpose, both concepts are first considered independently (Parts II and III). Following this, the larger part of the analysis is assigned to the examination of the international case law concerning gender-based claims (Part IV) which shall determine if and how gender-based persecution can appropriately be accommodated under the 'membership of a particular social group' category,

Most scholars claim that international human rights norms embodied in formal international declarations and treaties have an important impact on domestic political interests and governmental practices. This reasoning about the impact of global human rights is often applied to the post-apartheid South African immigration and refugee policies. While I acknowledge that the ratification of United Nations Conventions on refugees has altered the traditional sovereignty considerations of South Africa towards asylum seekers, I take issue with the claims that South African refugee and asylum policies are primarily motivated and based on humanitarian considerations. Instead, I argue that these policies are based on sovereign considerations and strategic foreign policy interests. As a result this sovereign interests of South Africa to study has sought to demonstrate that largely explain decisions on the part accept or reject refugees. Although norms diffusion, international advocacy networks, and prestige factors have made a big impact, in practice the refugee policy has continued to reflect South Africa's strategic interests and domestic considerations at all levels. However, I have not argued that South Africa should overlook its national and foreign interests and abide by international human rights norms regardless of the cost of doing so. I have only sought to demonstrate that refugee protection is more when powerful national interests find it conducive to manage the destabilizing refugee flows.

No description available.

Recent feminist criticism has resulted in remarkable changes to the interpretation of the refugee definition. Case law, academic commentaries and gender guidelines now recognize that women may constitute a particular social group under the definition of refugee. However, only those who belong to certain subgroups of women are usually granted asylum because being a woman only is considered too broad to comprise a particular social group. Such restrictive interpretation is theoretically and practically problematic, and it is the primary cause for the inconsistency in the interpretation of the definition of a particular social group and refugee determination in gender-based claims. Through an analysis of recent gender-based cases before the Canadian courts and the Immigration and Refugee Board, this paper argues that this inconsistency will be avoided when categorization of women does not require female claimants to prove characteristics other than their gender. Female refugees who are persecuted for being women do not need to provide additional reasons for their suffering, and this broad categorization of women should be consistently applied in Canada.