Asylum Determination Process: A Comparative Study of the United States and Canada

  • Prabsimran Singh,
  • Dilraj Singh,
  • Meenakshi Singh and Jaideep Singh Maan
  • Show Author Details
  • Prabsimran Singh

    Student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, India

  • Dilraj Singh

    Student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, India

  • Meenakshi Singh

    Student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, India

  • Jaideep Singh Maan

    Student at Symbiosis Law School Pune, India

  • img Download Full Paper


Canada and the United States, two of the largest countries on earth that proudly welcome immigrants, have long been major actors in the international refugee protection system. Canada has a long history of providing humanitarian aid and, in particular, defending refugees. However, both countries have recently backtracked on their previous protection obligations by placing a higher priority on law enforcement and reducing their commitments to civil liberties and refugee protection as a result. These trends have accelerated since September 11, 2001. This article will provide an overview of and comparison of the asylum decision processes in Canada and the United States, paying special emphasis to the non-entrée measures used by both nations to prevent or even forbid potential asylum seekers from submitting claims on their territory. It will highlight regretful alterations to the agendas of both countries. The article shall further contrast the measures that the two nations have implemented on a few particular asylum difficulties at the same, stressing their various detention practices and their growing readiness to cooperate on a regional level. The asylum procedure in Canada will be discussed first, with a focus on the new procedural limitations. Following that, we will repeat the process for the US and highlight some of the parallels and discrepancies between both systems. Finally, we will look at some of the more significant Canada-United States joint ventures, including the most recent "safe third country" arrangement between the two countries.


Research Paper


International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 5, Issue 4, Page 1595 - 1604


Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLMH 2021