Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the discrepancies between institutional accountability and the lived experiences of applicants within Canada's algorithmic visa triage system. By employing the Algorithmic Decision-Making Adapted for the Public Sector (ADMAPS) framework and analyzing Reddit discussions, the study reveals three key asymmetries: epistemic, jurisdictional, and temporal-relational, which highlight the challenges applicants face in understanding opaque decision-making processes. The findings underscore the necessity of focusing on the uneven experiences of individuals rather than solely on institutional design, revealing how algorithmic governance can perpetuate inequalities in transnational migration contexts.
Institutional transparency in Canada's visa system masks significant disparities in how applicants experience algorithmic decision-making, revealing a troubling gap in accountability.
This paper examines how algorithmic accountability in Canada's visa system is articulated institutionally and experienced by applicants across borders. We analyzed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)'s Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) for the temporary resident visa (TRV) triage system using the algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) framework and analyzed Reddit discussions among applicants using a mixed-methods approach. We show that while institutional artifacts emphasize transparency, procedural safeguards, and bounded impacts, applicants engage in collective sensemaking to interpret opaque decisions, often relying on peer knowledge amid uncertainty. We identify three asymmetries between how institutional accountability is structured and how people perceive the process: epistemic asymmetry in access to decision logic, jurisdictional asymmetry in exposure shaped by geopolitical positioning, and temporal--relational asymmetry in how waiting and uncertainty are experienced. We emphasize why it is important to shift attention from institutional design to the uneven distribution of experiences with public-sector algorithmic governance. Together, these contributions demonstrate how algorithmic governance systems in the context of transnational migration produce structured asymmetries not captured by institutional disclosure frameworks, and how extending ADMAPS can account for those uneven translations of accountability.
