International law provides states with a common definition of a "refugee" as well as guidelines outlining how asylum claims should be decided. Yet even across nations with many commonalities, the processes of determining refugee status look strikingly different. This book compares the refugee status determination (RSD) regimes of three popular asylum seeker destinations: the United States, Canada, and Australia. Though they exhibit similarly high levels of political resistance to accepting asylum seekers, refugees access three very different systems-none of which are totally restrictive or expansive-once across their borders. These differences are significant both in terms of asylum seekers' experience of the process and in terms of their likelihood of being designated as refugees. Based on a multi-method analysis of all three countries, including a year of fieldwork with in-depth interviews of policy-makers and asylum-seeker advocates, observations of refugee status determination hearings, and a large-scale case analysis, Rebecca Hamlin finds that cross-national differences have less to do with political debates over admission and border control policy than with how insulated administrative decision-making is from either political interference or judicial review. Administrative justice is conceptualized and organized differently in every state, and so states vary in how they draw the line between refugee and non-refugee.

Hamlin compares the refugee status determination (RSD) regimes of three popular asylum seeker destinations - the United States, Canada, and Australia. Despite similarly high levels of political resistance to accepting asylum seekers across these three states, once asylum seekers cross their borders, they access three very different systems. These differences are significant both in terms of asylum seekers' experience of the process and in terms of their likelihood of being found to be a refugee.

The award-winning, #1 New York Times bestselling novel from Alan Gratz tells the timely--and timeless--story of three different kids seeking refuge. A New York Times bestseller! JOSEF is a Jewish boy living in 1930s Nazi Germany. With the threat of concentration camps looming, he and his family board a ship bound for the other side of the world... ISABEL is a Cuban girl in 1994. With riots and unrest plaguing her country, she and her family set out on a raft, hoping to find safety in America... MAHMOUD is a Syrian boy in 2015. With his homeland torn apart by violence and destruction, he and his family begin a long trek toward Europe... All three kids go on harrowing journeys in search of refuge. All will face unimaginable dangers -- from drownings to bombings to betrayals. But there is always the hope of tomorrow. And although Josef, Isabel, and Mahmoud are separated by continents and decades, shocking connections will tie their stories together in the end. As powerful and poignant as it is action-packed and page-turning, this highly acclaimed novel has been on the New York Times bestseller list for more than four years and continues to change readers' lives with its meaningful takes on survival, courage, and the quest for home.

Over the course of two years, a group of award-winning photographers, filmmakers, painters, and writers trailed and documented the flood of refugees pouring into the West from the Middle East and Africa, recording the refugees' firsthand accounts of who they are and what made them refugees. Spare, haunting, utterly magnificent, and profoundly human, this inspiring collection creates a portrait of the greatest humanitarian crisis of modern history. From the pregnant mother in the dusty warehouse-turned-refugee-camp in Greece to the emaciated child in a mud-filled tent in Bangladesh to the lone Sudanese crouched under an overpass in Italy--the people inside this remarkable volume of exquisite photography and stories of resilience will teach you that the surest way to draw humans together begins with the words "I want to tell you my story . . ."

A touching, timely and tender exploration of refugees and migration for the youngest readers.

A Finalist for the 2019 Kirkus Prize in Nonfiction "Nayeri combines her own experience with those of refugees she meets as an adult, telling their stories with tenderness and reverence.” —The New York Times Book Review "Nayeri weaves her empowering personal story with those of the ‘feared swarms’ . . . Her family’s escape from Isfahan to Oklahoma, which involved waiting in Dubai and Italy, is wildly fascinating . . . Using energetic prose, Nayeri is an excellent conduit for these heart–rending stories, eschewing judgment and employing care in threading the stories in with her own . . . This is a memoir laced with stimulus and plenty of heart at a time when the latter has grown elusive.” —Star–Tribune (Minneapolis) Aged eight, Dina Nayeri fled Iran along with her mother and brother and lived in the crumbling shell of an Italian hotel–turned–refugee camp. Eventually she was granted asylum in America. She settled in Oklahoma, then made her way to Princeton University. In this book, Nayeri weaves together her own vivid story with the stories of other refugees and asylum seekers in recent years, bringing us inside their daily lives and taking us through the different stages of their journeys, from escape to asylum to resettlement. In these pages, a couple fall in love over the phone, and women gather to prepare the noodles that remind them of home. A closeted queer man tries to make his case truthfully as he seeks asylum, and a translator attempts to help new arrivals present their stories to officials. Nayeri confronts notions like “the swarm,” and, on the other hand, “good” immigrants. She calls attention to the harmful way in which Western governments privilege certain dangers over others. With surprising and provocative questions, The Ungrateful Refugee challenges us to rethink how we talk about the refugee crisis. “A writer who confronts issues that are key to the refugee experience.” —Viet Thanh Nguyen, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of The Sympathizer and The Refugees

International law provides nations with a common definition of a refugee, and with guidance on how asylum seekers who ask for refugee protection should be treated. Yet, the processes by which countries determine who should be granted refugee status look strikingly different, even across nations with many institutional, cultural, geographical, and political similarities. This dissertation compares the refugee status determination policies and procedures of three popular asylum seeker destinations - the United States, Canada, and Australia. The project uses a combination of in-depth elite interviews, courtroom observation, and case analysis to demonstrate that cross-national differences matter both in terms of procedural justice and in terms of raw acceptance rates. Two in-depth case studies of gender-based asylum claims, and claims based on Chinese population control policy illustrate that the impact of these cross-national differences is more acute for the growing number of asylum seekers whose claims do not naturally fit within the refugee definition. Striking cross-national variation in refugee status determination outcomes occurs despite a convergence in border control policies across these three countries. In response to public hostility towards asylum seekers, over the past two decades, the United States, Canada, and Australia have all dramatically increased their efforts to divert asylum seekers from reaching their shores and lodging claims that must be processed. However, once asylum seekers cross the borders of these nations, they access different sets of rights, depending on which borders they cross. These rights have less to do with political debates over admission and border control policy, and more to do with larger inter-branch turf battles and general debates about administrative due process and the scope of judicial review. Thus, the relative power, independence, and expertise of the administrative decision-making agency determines the outcome of important immigration questions while international law and domestic immigration politics often take a back seat.