Revocation nation: the rule of law and precarious legal status in Norway

In response to increased numbers of refugee claimants in 2015, the Norwegian government introduced restrictive measures aimed, in part, at deterring future arrivals. These included the mandatory cessation of refugee status when conditions underpinning the grant of asylum have changed. Unlike in Denmark, however, group-based cessation practices have not remained a distinct priority for immigration authorities. Instead, protection reviews are entangled with efforts to combat fraud in the immigration system, and stricter conditions for settlement. The interaction of these measures prolongs temporary residence status and intensifies the possibility of deportation for previously secure immigrant groups. In this article I analyze how precarious status is consolidated through three mechanisms collectively referred to as ‘revocation’ in national law and practice: cessation assessments, the revocation of residence permits, and denaturalization. I then outline two dilemmas that revocation practice poses from a rule of law perspective. I conclude that legal certainty, a core rule of law value, can only be secured by introducing an ‘end date’ to uncertainty. This could be achieved by lifting the threat of cessation after a limited period of time and by introducing a statute of limitations for revocation based on fraud.