Explaining geographic disparities in asylum appeal success rates at different hearing centres around the UK

如果寻求庇护者的案件在北伦敦审理，他们对最初的负面决定提出上诉的可能性是在纽波特或曼彻斯特审理的两倍多。这适用于所有在英国寻求庇护的人，但也适用于特定国籍的人。例如，伊朗人在一个听证中心的成功率为34%，而在另一个听证中心的成功率仅为18%，阿富汗人的成功率在31%到17%之间，取决于法院，津巴布韦人的成功率在54%到22%之间。这些地域差异在英国没有被调查，因为上诉成功率的数据是不公开的。然而，该提案借鉴了两个成功的信息自由请求（first），以便将庇护上诉成功率的地理分布拼凑在一起（见图1，支持案例）。由于各种原因，对这些差异进行检查是很重要的。首先，提出上诉的寻求庇护者可能面临审理其案件的法院抽签，这是武断和不公正的。其次，移民律师事务所和他们的客户（如法律服务委员会）在不同地区的成功程度上可能面临着不平衡的局面。了解这一“景观”将使他们能够更有效地指导他们的资源。第三，负责庇护上诉的官方机构，如司法部和英国移民局，需要信息和分析，以便判断是否应该采取措施，以改善庇护上诉系统的地域一致性。第四，除了移民法之外，更广泛的法律界应该警惕法律程序中存在的地域差异及其影响。从这些差异中产生的一个明显的研究问题是它们为什么存在。承认这些差异不太可能是偶然发生的（根据first的统计分析，小于0.01%的可能性），有四种解释。首先，可能会有行政程序将重大案件引向某些法院，尽管向英国移民局官员、移民法官和执业移民律师进行的初步调查不支持这种解释。其次，一些寻求庇护者有法律代理，而另一些没有，法律援助的地理位置可能是造成这种差异的原因。鉴于英国法律援助资金作为最近紧缩措施的一部分收缩了10%，这一解释似乎特别重要。第三，不同的法官可能倾向于特定的判决。这是美国定量研究的发现，该研究表明移民法官的性别和年龄对他们的决定有重大影响，强调了在英国案件中调查这组因素的重要性（Ramji-Nogales等人，2009）。第四，在法庭的日常实践中可能存在差异——他们的节奏、文化和惯例。这一套以法院为中心的独特和非同质场所的因素，在法律地理学以及更广泛的法律研究中仍未得到充分研究。本研究将检验这四组变量在解释庇护上诉成功率差异方面的相对显著性。在这样做的过程中，研究将把定性和定量的分析形式结合起来，以便对差异产生一套丰富和创新的解释；对庇护上诉的国家差异进行了首次基于统计的英国分析；对移民法领域的政策制定者、政治家和律师以及上诉人开展活动的方式的影响；并对今后地理学与法学关系的理论和实证研究具有广泛的启示意义。

Asylum seekers who appeal against initially negative decisions are more than twice as likely to be successful if their case is heard in North London than if their case is heard in Newport or Manchester. This is true for all asylum seekers in the UK, but also applies to specific nationalities. Iranians, for example, enjoy a 34% success rate at one hearing centre and only an 18% success rate at another, Afghans' success rates vary from 31% to 17% depending upon the court, and Zimbabweans' from 54% to 22%. These geographic disparities have not been investigated in the UK because the data on appeal success rates is not publicly available. This proposal draws upon two successful freedom of information requests (FIRs) however, in order to piece together the geography of asylum appeal success rates (see Figure One, case for support).An examination of these disparities is important for various reasons. First, asylum seekers who appeal may be facing a lottery in terms of the court that hears their case, which is arbitrary and unjust. Second, immigration law firms and their clients (such as the Legal Services Commission) may be facing an uneven landscape in terms of the degree of success they can expect in different parts of the country. Understanding this 'lawscape' will empower them with the knowledge to direct their resources more effectively. Third, official bodies with responsibility for asylum appeals, such as the Ministry of Justice and UKBA, need information and analysis in order to make a judgement about whether steps should be taken in order to improve the geographic consistency of the asylum appeal system. Fourth, the wider legal community, beyond immigration law, should be alerted to the existence and impact of geographic disparities in legal processes.The obvious research question arising from these disparities concerns why they exist. Accepting that the discrepancies are unlikely to have occurred by chance (less than 0.01% likelihood according to statistical analysis of the FIRs), four explanations present themselves. First, there may be administrative processes that direct strong cases towards certain courts, although preliminary enquiries put to officials from UKBA, immigration judges and practising immigration lawyers do not support this explanation. Second, some asylum seekers have legal representation and others do not, and this geography of legal aid may be driving the discrepancies. In light of the 10% contraction in legal aid funding in the UK as part of recent austerity measures, this explanation seems particularly important to address. Third, different judges may be predisposed towards particular decisions. This was the finding of quantitative US-based research that demonstrated that the gender and age of immigration judges has significant impact over their decisions, underscoring the importance of investigating this set of factors in the UK case (Ramji-Nogales et al, 2009). And fourth, there may be differences in the daily practices of courts - their rhythms, cultures and routines. This set of factors, centring upon courts as distinct and non-homogenous places, remains understudied in legal geography as well as legal studies more broadly.This research will examine the relative salience of these four groups of variables in explaining disparities in asylum appeal success rates. In so doing, the research will bring together qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis in order to generate a rich and innovative set of explanations for the disparities; constitute the first statistically informed UK-based analysis of national disparities in asylum appeals; impact upon the way policy makers, politicians and lawyers in the field of immigration law, as well as appellants, approach their activities; and have wide implications for the theoretical and empirical study of the relation between geography and law in the future.