Search

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 (a) interviewers' methods of eliciting a claim of religion; (b) their credibility assessments of particularly complex asylum claims, namely those based on religious conversion, unfamiliar religions, and non-belief; and (c) issues related to the presence of an interpreter. We found deviations in officials' assessment patterns from established knowledge in legal psychology and religious studies. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Methods Results Conclusions Queer asylum‐seekers should be given an opportunity to have their claim evaluated in a fair and unbiased manner. Despite this, research shows they risk having their claims rejected based on stereotypes about sexual minorities. In the present study, we investigated how the Finnish Immigration Service evaluated credibility in asylum claims lodged by sexual minorities.We analysed 68 negative asylum decisions to assess the arguments made to reject the asylum claim. To do this, we developed a detailed coding scheme to investigate the specific themes and credibility indicators cited in the asylum decisions.We found that the asylum claims were most often rejected because the applicant's account of their sexual orientation was not found to be sufficiently detailed, consistent, or plausible. Officials appeared to hold assumptions around sexual identity development and interpersonal relationships that are partially unsupported by established psychological science.Assessments of SOGI claims would benefit from a greater consideration of the factors affecting queer asylum applicants' ability to describe their claims, including cross‐cultural differences in understandings of sexuality, variability in human behaviour, and practical barriers within the asylum procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]