A review of psycho-legal issues in credibility assessments of asylum claims based on religion

Abstract

Religious persecution is a leading cause of global displacement. In the absence of supporting evidence, presenting a credible oral asylum claim based on religion is a difficult task for asylum-seekers. Asylum officials, in turn, face considerable challenges in evaluating the credibility of asylum-seekers’ claims to determine their eligibility for refugee status. We reviewed 21 original manuscripts addressing credibility assessments of asylum claims based on religion. We focused on (1) officials’ methods of eliciting a religious claim in the asylum interview; (2) their credibility assessments of particularly complex asylum claims, namely those based on religious conversion, unfamiliar religions, and absence of religion; and (3) issues related to the presence of an interpreter. We found deviations in officials’ assessment patterns from established knowledge in both legal psychology and the scientific study of religion. Closer collaboration between asylum practitioners and researchers in these fields is needed to improve the validity and reliability of credibility assessments of asylum claims based on religion.

Developing and Evaluating a Training Programme in Legal Psychology for Finnish Asylum Officials

“…Furthermore, officials expected applicants to fully understand the asylum system and act accordingly. For example, not disclosing all the reasons for seeking asylum immediately was seen as indicative of lying, even if the applicant later on gave a plausible explanation for withholding some information (e.g., not daring or understanding the importance of disclosing sensitive personal facts, such as sexual orientation; Selim et al, 2023). Despite these limitations, the available criteria are still preferable to no criteria at all, or the use of completely unsupported methods such as relying on gut-instinct or evaluating the applicant's demeanour (Maegherman et al, 2018).…”