Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:00:26.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5.3 - Immigration, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

from Part V - Civil Proceedings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2021

By
Nora Honkala
Edited by
Jennifer M. Brown  and
Miranda A. H. Horvath
Jennifer M. Brown
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Miranda A. H. Horvath
Affiliation:
University of Suffolk
Get access

Summary

The refugee determination process is often lengthy and potentially re-traumatising for claimants. It is difficult for an asylum seeker to get heard in this bureaucratic process. These difficulties are exacerbated by the psychological factors involved. Trauma can have an impact on both the asylum seeker as well as the interviewer. While traumatic experiences can have significant effect on memory and disclosure. How, what and when asylum seekers disclose certain experiences during the refugee determination process can, in turn, affect their credibility. Likewise, limited country of origin information can play a part in negative credibility findings. This chapter discusses these key common areas of concern, namely trauma, memory and disclosure, country of origin information and credibility within the refugee determination process. Psychiatrists’ and psychologists’ wealth of knowledge in the field of trauma and memory and their implications can therefore be of crucial assistance in this context.

Keywords

RefugeesAsylumTraumaCredibilityMemory
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology , pp. 684 - 696
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allsopp, J., Sigona, N., & Phillmore, J. (2014). Poverty among refugees and asylum seekers in the UK: An evidence and policy review (IRiS Working Paper No. 1/2014). University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Amnesty International UK. (2004). Get it right – How Home Office decision making fails refugees. www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/get_it_right_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Aid, Asylum (2011). Unsustainable: The quality of initial decision making in women’s asylum claims, asylum-aid-unsustainable.pdf (asylumaid.org.uk).Google Scholar
Baillot, H., Cowan, S., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Seen but not heard? Parallels and dissonances in the treatment of rape narratives across the asylum and criminal justice contexts. Journal of Law and Society, 36(2), 195–219.Google Scholar
Baillot, H., Cowan, S., & Munro, V. E. (2012).”Hearing the right gaps”: Enabling and responding to disclosures of sexual violence within the UK asylum process. Social & Legal Studies, 21(3), 269–296.Google Scholar
Baillot, H., Cowan, S., & Munro, V. E. (2013). Second-hand emotion? Exploring the contagion and impact of trauma and distress in the asylum law context. Journal of Law and Society, 40(4), 509–540.Google Scholar
Baillot, H., Cowan, S., & Munro, V.E. (2014). Reason to disbelief: Evaluating the rape claims of women seeking asylum in the UK. International Journal of Law in Context, 10(1), 105–117.Google Scholar
Bögner, D., Herlihy, J., & Brewin, C. R. (2007). Impact of sexual violence on disclosure during Home Office interviews. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolt, D. (2019). Independent chief inspector of borders and immigration: Inspection of country of origin information. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/809931/Inspection_of_Country_of_Origin_Information_2019._Burma__Iraq_and_Zimbabwe.pdfGoogle Scholar
Burridge, A., & Gill, N. (2017). Conveyor-belt justice: Precarity, access to justice, and uneven geographies of legal aid in UK asylum appeals. Antipode, 49(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, N. (2003). Home Office country assessments: An analysis. Immigration Advisory Service Research & Information Unit.Google Scholar
Clayton, G., & Frith, G. (Eds.). (2016). Textbook on immigration and asylum law (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collier, B. (2007). Country of origin information and women: Researching gender and persecution in the context of asylum and human rights claims. Asylum Aid.Google Scholar
Consonant. (2020). The asylum process made simple. https://legal.consonant.org.uk/campaigns/the-asylum-process-made-simple/Google Scholar
Evans Cameron, H. (2010). Refugee status determinations and the limits of memory. International Journal of Refugee Law, 22(4), 469–511.Google Scholar
Freedman, J. (2008). Women’s right to asylum: Protecting the rights of female asylum seekers in Europe? Human Rights Review, 9, 413–433.Google Scholar
Gbikpi, N. (2018, August 29). How to claim asylum in the UK. Free Movement. www.freemovement.org.uk/how-to-claim-asylum-in-the-uk/Google Scholar
Graham, B., Herlihy, J., & Brewin, E. (2014). Overgeneral memory in asylum seekers and refugees. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herlihy, J. & Turner, S. (2015). Untested assumptions: Psychological research and credibility assessments in legal decision-making. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 6(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Herlihy, J., & Turner, S. W. (2007). Asylum claims and memory of trauma: Sharing our knowledge. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 3–4.Google Scholar
Herlihy, J., Scragg, P., & Turner, S. (2002). Discrepancies in autobiographical memories: Implications for the assessment of asylum seekers. Repeated Interviews Study. British Medical Journal, 324(7333), 324–327.Google Scholar
Home Office. (2019). Asylum policy instruction: Asylum interviews. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410098/Asylum_Interviews_AI.pdfGoogle Scholar
Home Office. (2019, September). Immigration statistics. www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-september-2019/summary-of-latest-statisticsGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Library (2020). Asylum statistics briefing paper. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/Google Scholar
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. (2018). Report of the Independent Review of the Immigration and Refugee Board: A systems management approach to asylum. www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/pub/irb-report-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Independent Asylum Commission. (2008). Fit for purpose yet? The Independent Asylum Commission’s interim findings. www.citizensforsanctuary.org.uk/pages/reports/InterimFindings.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jubany, O. (2011). Constructing truths in a culture of disbelief: Understanding asylum screening from within. International Sociology, 26(1), 75–79.Google Scholar
Kälin, W. (1986). Trouble communication: Cross-cultural misunderstandings in the asylum hearing. International Migration Review, 20(2), 230–241.Google Scholar
Lift the Ban Coalition. (2018). Lift the ban: Why people seeking asylum should have the right to work. www.refugee-action.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Lift-the-Ban-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Muggeridge, H., & Maman, C. (2011). Unsustainable: The quality of initial decision-making in women’s asylum claims. www.refworld.org/docid/4d3435d12.htmlGoogle Scholar
MM (unfairness; E & R) Sudan [2014] UKUT 105 (IAC).Google Scholar
National Statistics. (2020). Summary of latest statistics, 21st May 2020. www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march 2020/summary-of-latest-statisticsGoogle Scholar
Refugee Council. (2020). Asylum Statistics: Annual Trends 2020. www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/top-10-facts-about-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum/Google Scholar
Rousseau, C., Crepeau, F., Foxon, P., & Houle, F. (2002). The complexity of determining refugeehood: A multidisciplinary analysis of the decision-making process of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. Journal of Refugee Studies, 15(1), 43–49.Google Scholar
Schuster, L. (2018). Fatal flaws in the UK asylum decision-making system: An analysis of Home Office refusal letters. Journal of Ethnics and Migration Studies, 46(7), 1371–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Z., Frommer, N., & Silove, D. (2004). The mental health impacts of migration: The law and its effects – failing to understand: Refugee determination and the traumatised applicant. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(6), 511–528.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. (2009). Credibility, proof and refugee law. International Journal of Refugee Law, 21(4), 700–726.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2006). Assessing the credibility of asylum claims: EU and UK approaches examined. European Journal of Migration and Law, 8, 79–96.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2011). Administrative justice and asylum appeals: A study of tribunal adjudication. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
UN General Assembly. (1951). Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, 189, 137. www.refworld.org/docid/3be01b964.htmlGoogle Scholar
UNHCR. (1998). Note on the Standard of Proof, 16 December 1998. www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3ae6b3338Google Scholar
UNHCR. (2005). Quality initiative project: Second report to the minister. www.unhcr.org/uk/quality-initiative-and-integration.htmlGoogle Scholar
UNHCR. (2019). Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status and guidelines on international protection under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees. www.unhcr.org/en-au/publications/legal/5ddfcdc47/handbook-procedures-criteria-determining-refugee-status-under-1951-convention.htmlGoogle Scholar
Vine, J. (2011). The use of country of origin information in deciding asylum applications: A thematic inspection. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545935/Use-of-country-of-origin-information-in-deciding-asylum-applications_2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 159–181.Google Scholar
Webber, F. (2012). Borderline justice: The fight for refugee and migrant rights. Pluto Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×