Macro-political studies have uncovered vast spatial differences in the acceptance ratios of asylum-seekers in the European Union, the United States and within countries such as Germany or Switzerland. Although discrimination is a likely cause of this inequity, we do not know whether prejudice against certain applicant groups or insufficient information about the individual requests explain the troubling patterns. Distinguishing between two classic models of discrimination, this article examines based on the IAB-BAMF-SOEP-Survey of Refugees in Germany the individual chance of asylum-seekers to receive the status of a refugee or to obtain other forms of protection. Theories of taste-based discrimination suggest that extra-legal factors such as public opinion or the ethnic identity of an asylum-seeker influence the decision on an application. The concept of statistical discrimination, conversely, advances the belief that increased information on an application helps the decision makers to overcome their tendency to rely on ethnic markers or other stereotypes when evaluating a file. We evaluate in this vein whether the reasons given for the asylum application or a desperate political situation in the country of origin increase the chance of protection. The empirical examination lends support to both claims and shows that extra-legal factors affect the initial decision to grant protection as well as appeals against these rulings. Our results raise concerns regarding Germany’s self-conception as a state under the rule of law as its asylum enforcement is largely determined by regional interests, thereby systematically violating the principle of equality before the law.