Applicants' accounts of experiences of fear, trauma, violence, and persecution are central to the process of claiming asylum. These narratives are, at a human level, primed to provoke emotional responses, not only in the narrator but also in those to whom the account is relayed. In this article, we explore the vectors of emotionality that permeate asylum decision‐making in the United Kingdom, focusing particularly on the risk faced by the professionals involved of suffering vicarious trauma. More specifically, based on a series of 104 semi‐structured interviews with asylum stakeholders and observation of 48 appeals to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First‐tier Tribunal, this article identifies the adoption by legal and quasi‐legal professionals of emotional coping strategies – of detachment and denial of responsibility – that risk being deployed in maladaptive ways that jeopardize the prospects for justice.
BackgroundPublic and policy attention to female genital mutilation (FGM) in diaspora communities has increased in Europe, but research remains limited and misinformation abounds. As a first step to addressing these issues, this study explored FGM prevention and response interventions in Europe, using a scoping literature review and key informant interviews.MethodsA scoping study design was selected, using Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage scoping framework to review identified sources. Key informant interviews were used to inform and add depth to literature findings. Findings were summarised thematically, guided by the Scottish Government’s ‘4Ps’ framework for tackling violence against women (i.e. participation, prevention, protection, providing services).ResultsSeventy literature sources, of 1095 screened, plus 16 individual and 3 group interview sources were included. Several countries have developed promising interventions supporting FGM resistance and recovery. However, gaps remain including community participation, professional knowledge and linkages, and evaluation of approaches.ConclusionsThis scoping review is an initial attempt to describe available primary evidence on European initiatives responding to FGM. Further research is required to determine whether interventions are effective, while policy and practice development must be shaped and driven by the experiences, needs, and views of affected communities.
Asylum applicants in the UK must show, to a 'reasonable degree of likelihood', a well-founded fear of persecution, on the basis of race, religion, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, in the event of return 'home'. This requirement presents myriad challenges both to claimants and decision-makers.Based on findings from a three-year national study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, this article explores those challenges as they relate to women seeking asylum in the UK, whose applications include an allegation of rape. The study explored the extent to which difficulties relating to disclosure and credibility, which are well documented in the context of women's sexual assault allegations in the criminal justice system, might be replicated and compounded for female asylumseekers whose applications include a claim of rape. Findings suggest that the structural and practical obstacles faced in establishing credibility, and the existence of scepticism about rape claims and asylum-seeking more generally, mean that 1 The authors are indebted to The Nuffield Foundation for funding this research (AJU/36101) and to Zoe Harper, our research assistant during the data generation stages of the project. Thanks are due to the project's Advisory Board for their time and advice. We would also like to thank all those who generously gave their time and support to the study, whether by being interviewed or facilitating tribunal observations. We are particularly grateful to the asylum claimants who allowed us to observe their hearings or to otherwise learn about their cases, and to include their experiences in our research. 1 decision-making can often be experienced as arbitrary, unjust, uninformed or contradictory, making it difficult for women asylum applicants who allege rape to find refuge in the UK.
The barriers that prevent or delay female victims of sexual assault from disclosing to criminal justice authorities, and the obstacles that often disincline professional and lay decision-makers from finding such narratives credible have been well documented. This article explores the extent to which such difficulties may be replicated, and compounded, in the case of female asylum-seekers; it will examine the complex ways in which the structure and processes, as well as the heavily politicised context, of asylum decision-making may contribute towards a silencing of sexual assault narratives. The article will explore the ways in which the intersection of race, ethnicity, gender, culture, religion, language and nationality present distinct challenges to women asylum applicants for whom an alleged rape is a part of their claim, and reflect on some of the difficulties which this presents in terms of assessing the credibility of sexual assault allegations, and of the overall asylum claim.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.