Performing Accountability and Transparency in Refugee Status Determination: Country of Origin Information and its Rituals of Verification

Asylum determination is often described as “the single most complex adjudication function in contemporary Western societies” (Rousseau et al. 2002:43). This complexity stems in part from the problem that decision-makers require thorough knowledge of the socio-political situation in the applicants’ countries of origin. Like most international phenomena, however, countries of origin are “objects that continuously raise new questions, have to be re-evaluated and dealt with differently” (Bueger 2015:6). Moreover, it consists of different kinds of knowledges that do not necessarily coexist peacefully with one another. Given this lack of robust knowledge in asylum decision-making, most European administrations have put elaborate systems in place to produce and circulate country of origin information (COI) (van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2018). Building on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literatures, our theme of verification revolves around the alignment of governmental COI research with seemingly incompatible scientific, legal, political, and public interests (Latour 1996); how they are simultaneously aimed at co-production with asylum determination procedures (Lynch et al. 2008) and restoring confidence in the public sector (Hansen and Christensen 2015). We examine the ‘rituals of verification’ (Power 1997) of COI in three bureaucratic settings: the Norwegian and British asylum administrations, as well as the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). These case studies highlight differentiated socio-material practices vis-à-vis the external evaluation and input. The Norwegian COI unit performs transparency and objectivity through insulation from the social context of the asylum procedure in which it operates (Rosset 2018). This claim for extraterritoriality boosts the idea of a neutral and thus objective knowledge production while simultaneously strengthening the black-boxing of the process. The British COI unit is unique in Europe by engaging in direct consultation with stakeholders. The Advisory Group on Country Information (IAGCI) is an evaluation platform involving both academics and civil society organisations producing reviews of COI products. Finally, we argue that within the EASO country information production is characterised by new deliberative forms through the co-optation of civil society actors. Relying on document analysis, interviews and participant observation, our paper interrogates the boundaries between public/private, academia/state, legality/policy are becoming increasingly blurred (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013; Walters 2015). We argue that the case studies illustrate a shifting style in the knowledge-based governance of asylum “from narrower issues of quality control (is it good?) to broader questions of accountability (is it relevant; is it good enough?)” (Jasanoff 2006:26). These rituals not only perform accountability and transparency in contentious asylum regimes, thereby fostering a form of legitimacy in asylum procedures, but also affect how and what is known in the politics of belonging and repatriation (Strathern 2000).