{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018535681186283594, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037071362372567192, 'mean_word_length': 4.901639344262295, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Refugee Rights and the Merits of Appeals

In this article we offer some reflections on the merits of the system constructed to review refugee status decisions. The Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) has been under enormous pressure (logistical and political) and is now fighting for its very existence, at least as far as review of UMA decisions is concerned. We examine a report that was commissioned into the operation of the RRT in 2012 and compare this with the parallel (non-statutory) regime created to review decisions made in respect of UMAs. The article re-visits arguments that are made for and against administrative appeals. Our findings on the international legal merits of appeals in this area will hold few surprises. From a practical point of view, however, we will argue that there is much to commend any regime that enables decisions to be made cheaply and with expedition – without creating unnecessary burdens on a state’s judicial system. The inevitability of an explosion in judicial review applications is the unintended consequence of abolishing merits review.