ABSTRACT
This chapter reflects on how mistakes made earlier in the process shaped the work of those involved in deciding upon appeals. Some of the typical mistakes uncovered by the courts were administrative, typographical or related to translation rather than to the substance of the claim. These insights throw into question the levels of investment in linguistic, clerical and legal competence at the initial stages of refugee status decision-making which produced severe challenges later on for legal representatives, appellants and judges alike. The chapter warns of responsibility offloading by national governments onto courts and judges at the appeal stage, especially during periods of higher-than-usual asylum claims–. Mistakes are commonly thought of as unintended aberrations, but we also reflect on the function that incompetence performs in border control as a form of deterrence.
