Refugee Law's Fact-Finding Crisis

Introduction; Part I: 1. The wrong mistake; 1.1. The traditional economic approach; 1.2. A psychologically founded theory; 1.3. A comparative study; 1.4. Conclusion; Part II: 2. Setting the scene; 2.1. At the refugee board; 2.2. At the Federal Court; 2.3. The case study: method and findings; 3. The wrong mistake: sending a refugee home; 3.1. Wrongly disbelieving the claimant; 3.2. Overlooking objective danger; 3.3. Denying claims on procedural grounds; 3.4. Conclusion; 4. Resolving doubt in the claimant's favour; 4.1. The burden of proof; 4.2. Standards of proof; 4.3. Presumption of truthfulness; 4.4. Conclusion; 5. The wrong mistake: accepting an unfounded claim;: 5.1. Refugee claimants are ordinary litigants; 5.2. The member is an ordinary decision-maker; 5.3. Conclusion; 6. Resolving doubt at the claimant's expense; 6.1. The burden of proof; 6.2. Standards of proof; 6.3. Presumptions; 6.4. Conclusion; 7. In the hearing room: 7.1. Conflicting standards of proof; 7.2. Permissible inferences: rational action and memory; 7.3. Conclusion; Part III: 8. A way forward; 8.1. The wrong mistake in international refugee law; 8.2. The Karanakaran approach; 8.3. Refugee status determination as an abductive risk assessment; 8.4. Conclusion.