'Hilary Evans Cameron's book is a meticulously researched account of the way in which judges' 'error preferences' inform their approach to asylum fact-finding. She shows not only that there has been a failure to agree to the rules applicable to nearly every aspect of the refugee fact-finding process, but that disagreement derives from a conflict of judicial values. Cameron makes a unique contribution to resolving this muddle, developing a theory of fact-finding anchored in the importance of doing justice to the predicament of asylum-seekers as vulnerable persons.' James C. Hathaway, University of Michigan Law School 'This is a profound and brilliant book that should be read by all asylum claim decision-makers, judges, refugee lawyers, tribunal administrators, and asylum policy makers. Hilary Evans Cameron exposes the unexamined flaws within the laws of fact-finding related to refugee claim decisions. She performs an incisive autopsy on the body of ambiguous Canadian jurisprudence that allows decision-makers to justify arbitrary and inconsistent decisions. With scalpel-like efficiency, she peels away the layers of false rationales that decision-makers use to paper over the inescapable truth that refugee decisions are built upon radical, evidentiary uncertainty. Thankfully, Dr Cameron does offer more honest and effective judicial tools, namely risk analysis and abductive reasoning. These tools are more Swiss Army knife than magic wand, but they are desperately needed in a world of asylum law that ignores gross inconsistencies between decision-makers and between countries.' Peter Showler, former Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada