Decision Making

By: Hilary Evans Cameron Canadian refugee status adjudicators must choose between two opposing bodies of law, one of which resolves doubt in the claimant’s favour and the other at the claimant’s expense. How do they decide which to prefer? How do they decide whether it would be better to risk accepting an unfounded claim or to risk rejecting a well-founded one? This paper explores one potentially relevant factor: the salience of the harms that decision-makers