Deciding on asylum dilemmas: a conflict between role and person identities for asylum judges

Large discrepancies in asylum recognition rates across individual judges and asylum agencies constitute a cause for concern. To better understand the asylum determination process, existing research has addressed various aspects, including the identities of asylum judges and their role as street-level bureaucrats who make discretionary decisions. Building on these streams of literature, this study examines how asylum judges in Germany and Greece make decisions under conditions of high uncertainty. Drawing on original interview data with lay and administrative judges from the respective capitals, this study focuses on 'grey area' asylum cases and sheds light on the decision-making mechanisms used by judges. This research finds that, in the face of moral dilemmas, judges experience a conflict between their role and person identities. Depending on which identity they prioritise, their decisions may be more 'evidence'-based or more preference-based. This article highlights the importance of the identities of asylum judges, not only as bureaucrats but also as people with a unique set of beliefs, norms and values. In doing so, it contributes to the debate on asylum determination and the field of street-level bureaucracy.