Concepción antropológica del iusnaturalimo

In order to test the variables simultaneously, so as to understand their significance in relation to each other, regression analysis was conducted. As explained in section 2.6.1, I take only the top 15 countries in the Database (where N > 30). The sample size of this dataset is 1923 cases (constituting 85% of decisions in the Database), which is sufficient for logistic regression. The binary dependent variable was the outcome of the decision (0 = affirmed, 1 = overturned). The independent variables were the Party Appointing the Member (Party Appointing) (0 = Liberal, 1 = Labor); the gender of the Member (0 = female, 1 = male); the presence of the new PAM3 policy (0 = old policy, 1 = updated policy); the average country overturn rate for all AAT asylum decisions (Country Overturn Rate) (probability between 0 and 1 measured as a continuous variable) and the freedom house score (average of 2015-2018, measured as a continuous variable between 0 and 7). As noted in section 0, the ‘Place of Decision’

is not included in the regression analysis due to issues of multicollinearity. The results are presented below in Table 9.

This table suggests that some variables have significant effects on decision-outcomes, including the Party Appointing. The Nagelkerke R² value (R² = .280) indicates that the model was reasonably well-fitted to the data.¹⁶⁹ The Party Appointing variable is statistically significant (p < 0.05). The exp(β) value of 1.458 indicates that the odds of a decision being overturned increase by 1.458 times when the case is determined by a Labor-appointed Member.¹⁷⁰ These results imply that politicised appointments of Members at the AAT are having an effect on decision-outcomes, at least for countries that appear frequently at the Tribunal. They are also in line with the findings on political decision-making in the US and Canada.¹⁷¹

169 The Nagelkerke R² value attempts to generate a goodness of fit statistic for logistic regression. It cannot be interpreted as a proportion of variance explained by the model (as in ordinary least squares regression). Whilst it is a generally accepted method of calculating goodness of fit in the statistical literature, it has also been

criticised for being an ad hoc method of evaluating a model, and should be interpreted with caution. See, Allison, P. (2012). Logistic regression using SAS: theory and application (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Pub. 68-72.

170 Results are expressed in terms of ‘odds ratios’ because this is the most intuitive way of reporting results of logistic regression. For further discussion see section 3.7.

171 Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag, "Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication."; Miller, Keith, and Holmes, Immigration Judges and U.S. Asylum Policy; Rehaag, "Judicial review of refugee

determinations: the luck of the draw?."

66

Table 9 Regression results for countries where N > 30. Nagelkerke R² = .278. N = 1923; SE = standard error; df = degrees of freedom; Wald = Wald chi-square test; Sig. = p value; Exp(β) = exponential of β. Note: As the model is a logistic regression, the β coefficient represents the change in log odds for each unit change. This is not intuitive to interpret.

Therefore, the exponential of β will be reported (exp(βk), which represents the odds ratio for each unit change.

β SE Wald df Sig. Exp(β)

As expected, the country of origin variable is statistically significant, as shown in the ‘Vietnam’ row (p < 0.05), as Vietnam is the reference category.¹⁷² The high Wald value (Wald = 185.26) also indicates

172 When testing categorical variables in logistic regression, one category is chosen to be the reference category, and therefore is not included in the regression model. The overall significance of that variable on the model is shown in the Vietnam row.

67 that the impact of the country of origin variable on decision-outcomes is very high. The high p value for each of the other countries (p ≈ 1) is because when testing categorical dependent variables in logistic regression, the β coefficient represents the difference between the reference category (Vietnam) and the other category. Such considerations are not applicable to this data, as an analysis of the comparative effects of each country of origin on decision-outcomes when compared to Vietnam is both irrelevant and not meaningful. Rather, only the overall effect of the variable as a whole (as shown in the Vietnam row) is useful.

The effect of Gender and the new PAM3 policy were, however, insignificant (p>.05). This confirms the chi-squared testing of these variables, which found that they had no relationship with decision-outcomes. The effect of the Freedom House score was also insignificant (p>.05). This indicates that there is not necessarily a correlation between whether a country is considered sufficiently dangerous for a successful refugee claim, and the Freedom House score. For example, China had a very high Freedom House score average (6.5 out of 7), but had a very low overturn rate (6% of Chinese applicants at the AAT were successful).

3.8 C ^ONCLUSION

The regression results indicate that there is a relationship between the political party appointing the Member and the decision-outcome for the 15 countries that appear most frequently in the Database (where N > 30). I can therefore state that H1 (‘Liberal-appointed Members will overturn cases at a lower rate than Labor-appointed Members’) can be accepted. The odds of a decision being overturned increase by 1.46 times where determined by a Labor-appointed Member (controlling for other variables). Returning to the research question, this indicates that Member’s political influences do have an impact on decision outcomes for asylum outcomes at the AAT between 2015 and 2018. This finding affirms the fears mentioned above and is an indictment on the independence of the AAT and the system of appointment, which appears to be politicised. The finding indicates that the outcome of an asylum seekers’ case is determined not by the merits of their case, but by the Member that is allocated to their case and the political party that appointed that Member. The significance of this finding in relation to the literature will be discussed in the subsequent chapter.

68