An administrative appeal procedure is for an administrative action to be examined in terms of legitimacy and adequacy by an administrative agency according to Administrative Appeal Act and then an administrative appeal decision is made. Therefore, an administrative appeal procedure is substantially a general administrative procedure. An administrative appeal procedure and an administrative procedure both belong to the system which guarantee procedure justice, but the former is set afterwards while the latter is mainly beforehand. There are still some differences between them in terms of the objective of Administrative Appeal Act and the values of procedures. An administrative appeal procedure after an administrative action is similar to a quasi-judiciary one that needs to be made exactly to conform to the intention of Article 16 of the ROC Constitution and the expectations from the public.I am of the opinion that the contents of an administrative appeal procedure concerned with due process of law need to be expounded. Furthermore, since an administrative appeal is part of administrative remedy, the procedure made to the inferior agency by the agency with jurisdiction of administrative appeal authorized by the laws needs to be examined. Thus while agency with jurisdiction of administrative examines a case, whether the principles are followed according to due process of law should be thoroughly examined. This paper makes comment and discussion from real appeal cases. There are five chapters included: Chapter 1: Motives, objective, scope and method of this research. Chapter 2: Introduction to the contents and conception of due process of law. Chapter 3: Analysis and discussion of the principles involved with due process of law in administrative appeal procedures. Chapter 4: Views from discussion of the cases to see whether the decisions and the administrative actions violate the basic principles in due process of law. Chapter 5: Conclusion and suggestions for amendment to Administrative Appeal Act and for improvement on appeal system. Keywords: administrative appeal procedure, administrative procedure, due process of law, the agency with jurisdiction of administrative appeal

The research problem this dissertation addresses is how judicial practices generate administrative justice in asylum determination procedures. Previous research on immigration policies argues that when asylum determinations are processed in courts, principles of administrative justice are ensured and immigrants’ rights protected. In this dissertation, I challenge that argument by approaching administrative justice as an empirical phenomenon open for different types of interpretations. Instead of assuming that administrative justice characterizes courts, I assume that this concept acquires particular meanings through the practices of the courts. Empirically, this dissertation studies practices of assessing asylum claims at the Swedish migration courts. The migration courts are the result of a major reform of the Swedish asylum procedure that took place in 2006, with the motive to end inhumane rejections of asylum seekers by enhancing administrative justice in the asylum process. By interviewing and observing judges at the migration courts, litigators from the Migration Board and public counsels from different law firms, this interpretive and ethnographic study analyzes how administrative justice acquires meanings in the daily practices of assessing asylum claims at the migration courts. The main result is that a ceremonial version of administrative justice is generated at the migration courts. This version of administrative justice forefronts symbolic dimensions of justice. The asylum appeal procedure succeeds in communicating justice through rituals, building design and metaphors, which emphasize objectivity, impartiality and certainty on behalf of the judicial practices. However, these symbols of justice disguise several unfair aspects of the asylum appeal procedure, such as inequality in resources and trustworthiness between the state’s representative and the asylum applicants as well as the uncertainty inherent in both the factual and the credibility assessment of asylum claims. The implications of these findings are that immigration policy research needs to reconsider the relationship between the courts and immigrants’ rights by paying more attention to the everyday practices of ensuing administrative justice in courts than on the instances when courts oppose political attempts to restrict immigrants’ rights.