<![CDATA[This study examines the use of discretion by Immigration Officials in determining damaged passports and their implications for legal certainty and the quality of public services. With an empirical normative approach and qualitative methods, data was obtained through regulatory review (especially Permenkumham No. 8 of 2014 Article 35 paragraph (1) letter f), interviews at three Immigration Offices (Soekarno Hatta, Tangerang, and Bandar Lampung) as well as immigration officials in related fields (drafters of laws and regulations, immigration forensic laboratories, and standardization of Travel Documents), and is complemented by a comparison with ICAO Doc 9303 and the practices of several countries. The findings show that the phrase "giving an inappropriate impression" lacks technical indicators, leading to variations in assessment among officials and across different immigration offices, especially the determination of damaged passports on biodata pages (photo clarity, MRZ, lamination) and e-passport chip function, as well as physical damage (teared, wet, burned, perforated, mold). These These variations potentially cause legal uncertainty and service inconsistency. This study recommends reformulating the regulation by establishing clear criteria for passport damage—covering biodata pages, physical integrity, and administrative categories—to effectively distinguish damage caused by force majeure (exempt from fines) from holder negligence (subject to fines), so that the determination of damaged passports throughout the Immigration Office has directed, consistent, and accountable guidelines.]]>
