The majority of asylum seeker and refugees around the world currently reside in cities, but continue to face issues of mobility, documentation, and rights. While research has looked at designated buildings and centres as a type of border excluding refugees and asylum seekers in cities, underlying contention over the location and presence of specific buildings and physical structures has not been fully examined. Therefore, I analyse how various state and non-state actors have challenged the location and presence of certain buildings and physical structures designated for refugees and asylum seekers in cities. Specifically, I review the past two decades of legal case records, supplemented by interviews and field observations, around legal and political contention over the relocations and closures of Refugee Reception Offices (RROs) in post-apartheid South African cities. I argue that RRO relocations and closures highlight the objectives of head state officials, though in relation to ambivalent interests and litigation by various actors over the jurisdiction of specific buildings, neighbourhoods, and cities. I develop the concept ofstate-urban bordersto highlight the constitutive process of RROs as contested state borders within urban spaces contributing to broader discussions on the multiplicity and contingency of borders within cities.
