A review of psycho-legal issues in credibility assessments of asylum claims based on religion
We synthesised recent literature on credibility assessments of asylum cases based on religion, a leading cause for displacement. We assess these prevalent credibility assessments methods in light of existing psychological knowledge.
21 original articles were selected that met our inclusion criteria. Articles were based on interview techniques and/or credibility assessments in claims based on religion.
We found 3 themes; (1) how asylum officials elicit a narrative of religion. Common strategies include assessing religious knowledge and focusing on religious behaviours and practices. Instead, officials should use open questions and consider if they are at risk of persecution due to their religious affiliation.
(2) Asylum officials’ assessments of particularly complex religion claims, e.g., religious conversion post-departure, unfamiliar belief systems (witchcraft-related violence), and the absence of religion.
(3) Interpreter-related issues in claims based on religion; such as mistrust of interpreters and confidentiality concerns, limited familiarity with asylum seekers religion, and interpreters’ potential distortion of officials’ interviewing style.
Officials hold assumptions about religion that deviate from empirical evidence, which may lead to inaccurate asylum decisions if applicants do not match their expectations. We need a closer integration between research and practice.
