Kae-young Choi, Procedural Due Process in Asylum Applications at Ports of Entry, Administrative Law Journal, Vol. 55 (2018), pp. 153-180.
<Abstract>
The “asylum procedure at ports of entry” was first introduced in 2013, along with the enactment of the Refugee Act. Despite the fact that the procedure is definitely a step forward with regard to refugee practice, it revealed its own limitations over the past 5 years. This paper examines the present situation of the asylum procedure at ports of entry, and suggests recommendations for the improvement of the procedure. First of all, denial of entry and subsequent refoulement, without the examination of asylum claim sought in airport transit zones, may constitute “rejection at the frontier” resulting in the return of refugee to the State where he or she faces the risk of persecution. In this regard, the exclusion of persons seeking asylum at ports of entry from those protected by Article 3 of the Refugee Act, as stipulated therein, is difficult to be deemed as a faithful implementation of the Refugee Convention. Procedural guarantees shall be reinforced in accordance with the principle of due process. Specific suggestions are as follows. a) The right to appeal to the Refugee Committee shall be conferred to those who received the decision of non-referral. This should be based on the premise of systematic improvements of the Refugee Committee, i.e., strengthening fairness and expertise, reforming itself as a standing committee (including the establishment of a refugee review tribunal), etc. b) Return should not be conducted prior to examination of the legality of the non-referral decision by a judicial or quasi-judicial body. c) Measures for asylum seekers to receive entry permit (e.g. provisional measures issued by court) shall be established, before the revocation judgement against a non-referral decision has not yet become final and conclusive. d) It is necessary to establish measures to guarantee the real chance to appeal against the non-referral decision. Such measures would include: (ⅰ) issuing a document that contains the content and reasons for the decision to the applicant, and (ⅱ) ensuring a chance of professional counseling so as to help the applicant decide whether he or she would appeal or not.
<Keywords>
asylum procedure at ports of entry, due process, non-refoulement, non-referral decision, duty to give reasons
Kae-young Choi, Procedural Due Process in Asylum Applications at Ports of Entry, Administrative Law Journal, Vol. 55 (2018), pp. 153-180.
<Abstract>
The “asylum procedure at ports of entry” was first introduced in 2013, along with the enactment of the Refugee Act. Despite the fact that the procedure is definitely a step forward with regard to refugee practice, it revealed its own limitations over the past 5 years. This paper examines the present situation of the asylum procedure at ports of entry, and suggests recommendations for the improvement of the procedure. First of all, denial of entry and subsequent refoulement, without the examination of asylum claim sought in airport transit zones, may constitute “rejection at the frontier” resulting in the return of refugee to the State where he or she faces the risk of persecution. In this regard, the exclusion of persons seeking asylum at ports of entry from those protected by Article 3 of the Refugee Act, as stipulated therein, is difficult to be deemed as a faithful implementation of the Refugee Convention. Procedural guarantees shall be reinforced in accordance with the principle of due process. Specific suggestions are as follows. a) The right to appeal to the Refugee Committee shall be conferred to those who received the decision of non-referral. This should be based on the premise of systematic improvements of the Refugee Committee, i.e., strengthening fairness and expertise, reforming itself as a standing committee (including the establishment of a refugee review tribunal), etc. b) Return should not be conducted prior to examination of the legality of the non-referral decision by a judicial or quasi-judicial body. c) Measures for asylum seekers to receive entry permit (e.g. provisional measures issued by court) shall be established, before the revocation judgement against a non-referral decision has not yet become final and conclusive. d) It is necessary to establish measures to guarantee the real chance to appeal against the non-referral decision. Such measures would include: (ⅰ) issuing a document that contains the content and reasons for the decision to the applicant, and (ⅱ) ensuring a chance of professional counseling so as to help the applicant decide whether he or she would appeal or not.
<Keywords>
asylum procedure at ports of entry, due process, non-refoulement, non-referral decision, duty to give reasons