Book contents
- Refugee Law’s Fact-Finding Crisis
- Refugee Law’s Fact-Finding Crisis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I
- Part II
- 2 Setting the Scene
- 3 The Wrong Mistake: Sending a Refugee Home
- 4 Resolving Doubt in the Claimant’s Favour
- 5 The Wrong Mistake: Accepting an Unfounded Claim
- 6 Resolving Doubt at the Claimant’s Expense
- 7 In the Hearing Room
- Part III
- Index
5 - The Wrong Mistake: Accepting an Unfounded Claim
from Part II
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2018
Book contents
- Refugee Law’s Fact-Finding Crisis
- Refugee Law’s Fact-Finding Crisis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I
- Part II
- 2 Setting the Scene
- 3 The Wrong Mistake: Sending a Refugee Home
- 4 Resolving Doubt in the Claimant’s Favour
- 5 The Wrong Mistake: Accepting an Unfounded Claim
- 6 Resolving Doubt at the Claimant’s Expense
- 7 In the Hearing Room
- Part III
- Index
Summary
The Canadian Federal Court often conceives of refugee claimants as ordinary litigants in a standard legal proceeding. Seen from this perspective, claimants cannot be assumed to be vulnerable. Like other litigants, if they claim any relevant vulnerability, they must prove it. Like other litigants, they have responsibilities to the legal system, and they must also be assumed to be rational actors who calculate costs and consequences and act in their own self-interest. Moreover, adjudicators are not being asked to accomplish anything extraordinary. All they need in order to judge a refugee claim are the common sense and reason required of any legal decision-maker. In short, the Court often firmly rejects the notion that refugee law is a special case.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Refugee Law's Fact-Finding CrisisTruth, Risk, and the Wrong Mistake, pp. 98 - 132Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018