Just another benefit? Administrative judges' constructions of sameness and difference in asylum adjudications

This ethnographic study examines how Swedish administrative judges apply the principle of treating like cases the same and unlike cases differently when adjudicating asylum claims. The findings suggest that judges construct asylum claims like citizens' claims for welfare benefits and unlike protection claims made by citizens. Drawing on Hannah Arendt's critique of the state-centric foundation of contemporary human rights framework, I demonstrate that the Swedish asylum procedure is structured according to a similar state-centric foundation. Therefore, it reinforces injustices that exist between those who belong to a political community and those who stand outside that community asking to be let in. This study contributes to previous research on asylum adjudication by shedding light on structural injustices embedded within legal practices rather than searching for explanations in extra-legal factors. The implication of this approach is that it makes visible a paradox: that judges' commitment to procedural justice principles can perpetuate structural injustices.