The Limits of Refugee Status Determination Through Credibility Assessment: Empirical Evidence from Sexual Orientation Asylum Cases

Abstract

Using credibility assessment methods in determining refugee status for asylum claimants is a widely used practice. Scholars tend to argue that this is inappropriate when sexual orientation forms the basis of the claim. Detailedness, consistency, and plausibility in sexual orientation narratives are hard to establish, as the narratives relate to identity and inner emotions rather than solely to external events. We have yet to determine which parts of the credibility assessments can affect refugee status outcomes. To address this gap, this article uses a representative sample of sexual orientation asylum decisions from Sweden, aiming to test which credibility aspects influence asylum determination outcomes. The findings reveal that case assessors put emphasis on detailedness and inconsistencies to determine whether statements are truthful. This emphasis on detail and consistency poses challenges in verifying the credibility of sexual orientation claims, as it is susceptible to deception. These insights underscore the need for a deeper understanding of credibility assessment methods to ensure a fairer treatment of sexual orientation claimants in asylum processes.