Refugee Status Determinations and the Limits of Memory

Abstract

Refugee status decision makers typically have unreasonable expectations of what and how people remember. Many assume that our minds record all aspects of the events that we experience, and that these memories are stored in our brains and remain unchanged over time.Decades of psychological research has demonstrated, however, that our memories are neither so complete nor so stable, even setting aside the effects on memory of trauma and stress. Whole categories of information are difficult to recall accurately, if at all: temporal information, such as dates, frequency, duration and sequence; the appearance of common objects; discrete instances of repeated events; peripheral information; proper names; and the verbatim wording of verbal exchanges. In addition, our autobiographical memories change over time, and may change significantly. As a result, while gaps or inconsistencies in a claimant's testimony may in some cases properly lead to a negative credibility finding, such aspects are often misleading and should never be used mechanically, and the bar must be set much lower. Many decision makers must fundamentally readjust their thinking about claimants' memories if they are to avoid making findings that are as unsound as they are unjust.The first section of this article highlights common failures of memory that are relevant to the refugee determination process: memory for time (dates, duration, frequency and sequence); common objects; repeated events; peripheral information; names; and verbatim memory. The second explores how memory changes over time, and concludes by noting that the test conditions at the IRB likely contribute to the inconsistency of claimants' memories. Although the examples throughout are taken from Canada's refugee determination system, the points made apply equally to the refugee determination systems of other countries. Availability/AccessibilityCertain categories of information are not encoded in our memories, or are encoded but are not easily accessed. In reconstructing our memories of events, we have trouble recalling such information accurately, if at all. 4 TimeAfter many years of studies, researchers agree that in remembering we have access to 'very little temporal information'. 5 There is no question that we can remember events in considerable detail and still have only a vague idea of when they happened, or how often, or for how long, or in what order. DatesWhen we remember an event, our ability to assign a date to it is nearly always based on 'inference, estimation and guesswork'. 6 With enough 'clues to the correct answer', 7 we may be able to reconstruct when the event must have taken place, 8 but since our guesses are only as good as our clues, they are often not very good at all. In fact, as study upon study have shown, 'the dates that individuals assign to their past events are rarely accurate'. 9

Who are you afraid of and why? Inside the black box of refugee tribunals

“…In an appeal of a welfare decision, for example, there are usually sources of information aside from the applicant. In the hearing room, the information comes only from the claimants themselves in the form of oral testimony, often without documentary evidence, and Members concert their efforts towards a quest for “truth” (Cameron ). That is why understanding the RSD begins with examining the refugee hearing.…”

What Happens to Law in a Refugee Camp?

“…In another announcement about registration issues posted in 2003, the UNHCR‐Ghana (2003b) framed the matter as an “error” and exhorted people to correct their mistakes or “it will raise questions of credibility and honesty that could effect your ability to benefit from … UNHCR services.” The announcement concluded by stating, “If you fail to correct these errors now, it will cause you problems in the future for which you will have only yourself to blame.” But over time, the UNHCR became increasingly punitive in their response to refugee noncompliance, and these measures became increasingly reliant on legal institutions like the host police. This pattern is not limited to Buduburam, but reflects a common shift over time during protracted crises—a pattern of rising mistrust that weakens the relationships between the UNHCR and refugees (Daniel & Knudsen ) and refugee status determination practices more broadly (Alexander ; Cameron ; Kagan ).…”

“…But over time, the UNHCR became increasingly punitive in their response to refugee noncompliance, and these measures became increasingly reliant on legal institutions like the host police. This pattern is not limited to Buduburam, but reflects a common shift over time during protracted crises-a pattern of rising mistrust that weakens the relationships between the UNHCR and refugees (Daniel & Knudsen 1995) and refugee status determination practices more broadly (Alexander 1999;Cameron 2010;Kagan 2006).…”

Just Tell Us What Happened to You: Autobiographical Memory and Seeking Asylum

“…Relying on the memory of an event to make a legal judgement also assumes that it will be an accurate account of the event (setting aside the issue of different people's perceptions of the same witnessed event) (Cameron, 2010). Ascertaining the accuracy of autobiographical memories in research is problematic, as we generally cannot compare the memory and the actual event.…”

“…Furthermore, prominent review papers relating to specific aspects of memory that can be used to inform the process already exist (e.g. Cameron, 2010). Rather, the aim of this article is to highlight autobiographical research areas that relate specifically to the asylum process and to review and include a selection of recent review papers and empirical work that is applicable to this situation.…”