'The Ring of Truth': A Case Study of Credibility Assessment in Particular Social Group Refugee Determinations

Abstract

Credibility assessment has always been a major issue in refugee determinations and its importance increases in the context of widespread introduction of 'fast-track' processes and the manifest trans-national trend to truncate (or indeed remove) avenues for review. This article explores the practice of credibility assessment in lower level tribunals using a case study of over 1000 particular social group ground (PSG) decisions made on the basis of sexual orientation over the past 15 years. Credibility played an increasingly major role in claim refusals, and negative credibility assessments were not always based on well-reasoned or defensible grounds. The article uses this specific case study in order to ground recommendations for structural and institutional change aimed at improving the credibility assessment process in refugee determinations more broadly.

Mental health and legal representation for asylum seekers in the ‘legacy caseload’

“…Credibility assessment has always been a major issue in refugee determinations and its importance increases in the context of this FTA processes which has severely curtailed merits review and in some cases removed it altogether (Kenny & Procter 2015). As refugee determinations become less reviewable, it is increasingly important to get the application right the first time (Millbank 2009). This is also stressed in information provided by the Department of Immigration to asylum seekers.…”

Credibility Assessments as 'Normative Leakage': Asylum Applications, Gender and Class

“…The 'subjective dimension' has been pointed out in research (e.g. [3,25,26]). For instance, Herlihy et al [25] discuss the assumptions of the assessors.…”

On Silence, Sexuality and Skeletons: Reconceptualizing Narrative in Asylum Hearings

“…The legal implications of an inability or unwillingness to vocalize trauma in a manner intelligible to the court can lead to the labelling of testimony as lacking credibility and thereby undermine the claim to asylum (Millbank, 2009a). In order to counter this scepticism the court must incorporate into its decision-making process information which speaks to the psychological impact that trauma has on the production of narrative.…”