Obviously without foundation: Discretion and the identification of clearly abusive asylum applicants

Abstract

This article looks at how asylum examiners in Brazil account for their ability to identify asylum applications they see as clearly abusive. The argument highlights a proclivity in examiners’ talk to shift discursive registers, from law and evidence to psychological and social bias, when talking about identifications they agree and do not agree with. This way of talking, it is argued, allows examiners to treat the refusal of clearly abusive claims as self-explanatory, while also acknowledging discretion as an inescapable feature of asylum decision-making. By relying on this ambiguous style of speaking truth, which portrays the outcome of claims as both dependent on and free of discretion, Brazilian examiners accrue authority to their views. Decisions to deny clearly abusive claims are rendered reasonable, in spite of barely being accounted for. What is worse, register-shifting kills the drive to ask what makes these denials so obvious by making the very question sound absurd.

Keywords

Asylum and abuse Brazil borders decision and discretion critical security studies enactment and refugees

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Advocacia Geral da União (AGU) [Brazil’s Federal Attorney Office] (2017) Estrangeiros que solicitaram refúgio devem observar regras de retorno ao Brasil [Foreigners applying for asylum must follow rules when returning to Brazil]. 19 July. Available at: http://www.agu.gov.br/page/content/detail/id_conteudo/578604 (accessed 27 May 2018).

Amoore

de Goede

(eds) (2008) Risk and the War on Terror. London and New York: Routledge.

Amoore

Raley

(2017) Securing with algorithms: Knowledge, decision, sovereignty. Security Dialogue 48(1): 3–10.

Aradau

Blanke

(2015) The (Big) Data-security assemblage: Knowledge and critique. Big Data & Society 2(2): 1–12.

Aradau

Huysmans

(forthcoming). Assembling credibility: (In)security, critical knowledge and the politics of method.

Arcoverde

Sousa

Araújo

(2018) Brasil registra número recorde de solicitações de refúgio em 2017 [Brazil registers record number of refugee requests in 2017]. O Globo (Rio de Janeiro), 10 January. Available at: g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/brasil-registra-numero-recorde-de-solicitacoes-de-refugio-em-2017.ghtml (accessed 18 May 2018)

Bohmer

Shuman

(2017) Political Asylum Deceptions: The Culture of Suspicion. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourne

Johnson

Lisle

(2015) Laboratizing the border: The production, translation and anticipation of security technologies. Security Dialogue 46(4): 307–325.

Chimni

(2009) The birth of a ‘discipline’: From refugee to forced migration studies. Journal of Refugee Studies 22(1): 11–29.

10.

Clifford

(1983) On ethnographic authority. Representations 2(2): 118–146.

11.

Clifford

Marcus

(2010) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

12.

Conselho Nacional de Imigração (CNIg) (2017) Resolução Normativa No. 126 de 02 de março de 2017 (CNIg) [Normative Resolution no. 126, 2 March 2017]. Diário Oficial da União (Brasília), 3 March. Available at: http://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/scripts/doc.php?file=fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2017/11016 (accessed 27 May 2018).

13.

Comitê Nacional para os Refugiados (CONARE) (2013) Resolução Normativa No. 17, de 20 de setembro de 2013 [Normative Resolution no. 17, 20 September 2013]. Coordenação-geral de assuntos de refugiados. Diário Oficial da União (Brasília), 21 September. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=54e72bb94 (accessed 27 May 2018).

14.

Comitê Nacional para os Refugiados (CONARE) (2014) Resolução Normativa No. 18, de 30 de abril de 2014 [Normative Resolution no. 18, 30 April 2014]. Coordenação-geral de assuntos de refugiados. Diário Oficial da União (Brasília), 30 April. Available at: http://www.justica.gov.br/seus-direitos/migracoes/refugio/anexos/resolucao-18-dou-pdf.pdf (accessed 27 May 2018).

15.

Comitê Nacional para os Refugiados (CONARE) (2018) Resolução Normativa No. 26, de 29 de março de 2018 [Normative Resolution no. 26, 29 March 2018]. National Justice Secretariat. Diário Oficial da União (Brasília), 10 April. Available at: http://www.justica.gov.br/central-de-atendimento/estrangeiros/refugio-1/resolucao-normativa-n-26-conare-1.pdf (accessed 27 May 2018).

16.

Côté-Boucher

(2016) The paradox of discretion: Customs and the changing occupational identity of Canadian border officers. British Journal Of Criminology 56(1): 49–67.

17.

Côté-Boucher

Infantino

Salter

(2014) Border security as practice: An agenda for research. Security Dialogue 45(3): 195–208.

18.

Dauphinee

(2013) The Politics of Exile. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.

19.

Doty

(2004) Maladies of our souls: Identity and voice in the writing of academic international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17(2): 377–392.

20.

Doty

(2007) States of exception on the Mexico–US border: Security, ‘decisions,’ and civilian border patrols. International Political Sociology 1(2): 113–137.

21.

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) (2016) The length of asylum procedures in Europe. Report, Asylum Information Database, European Council on Refugees and Exiles. Available at: https://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AIDA-Brief-DurationProcedures.pdf (accessed 18 May 2018).

22.

Eule

(2014) Inside Immigration Law: Migration Management and Policy Application in Germany. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

23.

Garfinkel

(1991) Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Wiley.

24.

Gilbert

Mulkay

(1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Gilboy

(1991) Deciding who gets in: Decisionmaking by immigration inspectors. Law & Society Review 25(3): 571–599.

26.

Gogolak

(2014) Haitian migrants turn towards Brazil. The New Yorker, 20 August.

27.

Griffiths

(2012) ‘Vile liars and truth distorters’; Truth, trust and the asylum system. Anthropology Today 28(5): 8–12.

28.

Hall

(2017) Decisions at the data border: Discretion, discernment and security. Security Dialogue 48(6): 488–504.

29.

Heyman

(2009) Trust, privilege, and discretion in the governance of the US borderlands with Mexico. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 24(3): 367–390.

30.

Huysmans

(2014) Security Unbound: Enacting Democratic Limits. London and New York: Routledge.

31.

Inayatullah

(ed.) (2011) Autobiographical international Relations: I, IR. London and New York: Routledge.

32.

Infantino

Rea

(2012) La mobilisation d’un savoir pratique local: Attribution des visas Schengen au Consulat Général de Belgique à Casablanca [Mobilising practical local knowledge: The granting of Schengen visas at the Belgian Consulate General in Casablanca]. Sociologies Pratiques 24(1): 67–78.

33.

Jubany

(2017) Screening Asylum in a Culture of Disbelief : Truths, Denials and Skeptical Borders. London and Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Jubilut

Apolinário

(2008) Refugee status determination in Brazil: A tripartite enterprise. Refuge: Canada’s periodical on refugees 25(2): 29–40.

35.

Justice Ministry [Brazil] (2013) Acordo entre MJ e ONU irá aprimorar reconhecimento de refugiados no Brasil [Agreement between MJ and the UN to improve the recognition of refugees in Brazil].

36.

Justice Ministry [Brazil] (2018) Avisos Importantes: alteração no artigo 6º da Resolução Normativa Nº18 de 30 de abril de 2014 [Important Notices: change in Article 6 of the Normative Resolution no. 18 of 30 April 2014].

37.

Latour

(1986) The power of associations. In: Law

(ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 264–280.

38.

Leander

(2015) Ethnographic contributions to method development: ‘Strong objectivity’ in security studies. International Studies Perspectives 17(4): 1–14.

39.

Lipsky

(2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

40.

Magalhães

(2016) The politics of credibility: Assembling decisions on asylum applications in Brazil. International Political Sociology 10(2): 133–149.

41.

Magalhães

(2017) One thing left on the checklist: Ontological coordination and the assessment of consistency in asylum requests. In: Leese

Wittendorp

(eds) Security/Mobility. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 170–188. Available at: http://manchester.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7228/manchester/9781526107459.001.0001/upso-9781526107459-chapter-010 (accessed 27 May 2018).

42.

Moffette

(2014) Governing immigration through probation: The displacement of borderwork and the assessment of desirability in Spain. Security Dialogue 45(3): 262–278.

43.

Moulin

Thomaz

(2016) The tactical politics of ‘humanitarian’ immigration: Negotiating stasis, enacting mobility. Citizenship Studies 20(5): 595–609.

44.

Nyers

(2012) Moving borders: The politics of dirt. Radical Philosophy 174(2). Available at: https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/moving-borders (accessed 27 May 2018).

45.

Pratt

(2010) Between a hunch and a hard place: Making suspicion reasonable at the Canadian border. Social & Legal Studies 19(4): 461–480.

46.

Pratt

Sossin

(2009) A brief introduction of the puzzle of discretion. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 24(3): 301–312.

47.

Rose

(1998) Governing risky individuals: The role of psychiatry in new regimes of control. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 5(2): 177–195.

48.

Secretaria Nacional de Justiça (SNJ) (2018) Despachos do chefe, de 26 de Janeiro de 2018. Departamento de Migrações. Divisão de Processos Migratórios [Dispatches from the chair: Migrations Department. Migratory Processes Division]. Diário Oficial da União (Brasília), 29, section I, 26 January. Available at: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/175184211/dou-secao-1-26-01-2018-pg-29 (accessed 27 May 2018).

49.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1983) The Problem of Manifestly Unfounded or Abusive Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum. ExComm Resolution No. 30 (XXXIV). Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/excom/exconc/3ae68c6118/problem-manifestly-unfounded-abusive-applications-refugee-status-asylum.html (accessed 27 May 2018).

50.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2010) Improving Asylum Procedures: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Law and Practice. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4bab55752.html (accessed 18 May 2018).

51.

Vogl

(2016) A matter of time: Enacting the exclusion of onshore refugee applicants through the reform and acceleration of refugee determination processes. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 6(1): 137–162.

52.

Weber

(2003) Down that wrong road: Discretion in decisions to detain asylum seekers arriving at UK ports. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 42(3): 248–262.

53.

Williams

(1999) French Discourse Analysis: The Method of Post-Structuralism. London and New York: Routledge.