吃瓜直播

You are now in the main content area

Other Project Publications

Virtual Hearings Circle Report (Jul 2025)

Authors: Hilary Evans Cameron, Marcedes Ransome, Tyler Sparrow-Mungal, Charanija Srirajasingam, Thanu Jude Xavier and Annie Yu

While recognizing that the virtual format may have benefits in refugee status hearings, the VHC project brought together twelve participants for a day-long discussion that sought to understand better its potential risks. The Report sets out their conclusions: the virtual format may increase in several ways the risk of a claimant being misunderstood or wrongly disbelieved, or of having an acutely stressful experience. 

鈥溾業 must have been confused.鈥 Thinking about thinking in refugee status-decision making: a scoping review of metacognition studies鈥

鈥業 Must Have Been Confused.鈥 Thinking about Thinking in Refugee Status Decision-making: A Scoping Review of Metacognition Studies

Michaela Hynie, Maire L. O鈥橦agan, Amy E. Beaudry, Alisha C. Salerno-Ferraro, Jane Herlihy & Hilary Evans Cameron, 鈥溾業 must have been confused.鈥 Thinking about thinking in refugee status decision-making: a scoping review of metacognition studies鈥 (2026) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1鈥49. 

Refugee status adjudicators often rely on the assumption that people understand and can explain their own mental processes. This scoping review looks at metacognition (thinking about thinking) and the extent to which cognitive processes are available to conscious awareness and/or control. Its findings reveal the inaccuracy or incompleteness of metacognitive awareness.

 

鈥極ff-the-record鈥 deception inferences in Canadian refugee status decision-making: A view from the Bar

鈥極ff-the-Record鈥 Deception Inferences in Canadian Refugee Status Decision-making: A View from the Bar

(Presented at the 鈥(Re-)constructing Credibility in Refugee Status Determination鈥 workshop, University of Copenhagen, Oct 23, 2026; in progress) 

Authors: Hilary Evans Cameron, Anish Jammu, Maha Khawaja and Jane Herlihy

This study investigated Canadian refugee lawyers鈥 impressions of decision-makers鈥 reasoning. Its findings show areas of firm consensus that certain 鈥榦ff-the-record鈥 factors regularly influence deception judgments (e.g. stereotypes, emotional affect), as well as areas of disagreement and, above all, marked uncertainty (e.g. whether technological factors relating to the online environment affect deception judgments). 

Reasoning with Probability in Truth and Deception Judgments in Refugee Status Determination

Reasoning with Probability in Truth and Deception Judgments in Refugee Status Decision-making

(In progress, 2026)

Author: Hilary Evans Cameron

How likely is it that an alleged event would occur? When, why and how should the odds that such an event would occur (its 鈥榠nherent probability鈥) affect a decision maker鈥檚 confidence in the claim that it did occur? The first part of this article addresses this question in the context of legal decision making generally, and the second part in the particular context of truth and deception findings in refugee status decisions.

Principled Asymmetry: Bringing Psychology Research Evidence to Refugee Status Decision-making

Principled Asymmetry: Bringing Psychology Research Evidence to Refugee Status Decision-making

(Under review)

Author: Hilary Evans Cameron

This article argues that the norms developed in the Anglo-American criminal law provide helpful guidance to those who will translate psychology research evidence for use in refugee status decision making. Those doing this work should reject the notion that decision-makers will consider all relevant evidence. They should put psychology research evidence before decision-makers selectively and asymmetrically.