RSD for status, RSD for resettlement: standards and opportunities

Abstract

In countries that are not signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, such as Pakistan, UNHCR often has primary responsibility for conducting RSD. In such operations, two types of RSD exist with different goals: RSD for status to determine whether the individual falls within the protection of UNHCR’s Mandate conducted by eligibility staff; and later, as a part of the search for durable solutions, RSD for resettlement to a third country undertaken by resettlement staff. Theoretically, while resettlement staff do not conduct RSD, in practical terms, RSD decisions from the status stage is often re-assessed or – at the very least – updated and re-drafted before submission to resettlement countries. Although asylum seekers can appeal RSD decisions made by UNHCR, such review mechanisms remain internal. The submission of individuals for resettlement consideration to third countries is the only time when UNHCR is accountable to an external party for the quality of its individual casework, particularly in relation to its RSD decisions. This paper explores the implications of this internal two-tier system within UNHCR RSD. First, the impact of the quality of RSD decisions at status stage on the standards of asylum, particularly in situations of conflict with a large and protracted refugee population. Second, the opportunity that potentially lies within RSD for resettlement to influence the domestic RSD policies of resettlement countries. Currently, RSD decisions by UNHCR operations make few explicit references to national developments and judicial decisions relevant to RSD. However, by engaging with domestic developments of resettlement countries (particularly Australia, USA and Canada) more explicitly, resettlement may be used as a strategic advocacy tool to promote Convention standards for RSD.