Asylum claims based on sexual orientation: a review of psycho-legal issues in credibility assessments
A narrative review was conducted to explore asylum officials’ credibility assessments based on sexual orientation, and how well these align with psychological knowledge. From this, we pose implications for research and practice.
47 original articles were selected that met our inclusion criteria. The articles were based on asylum decision making in predominantly Western countries and spanned a variety of disciplines (e.g., psychology, law). Therefore, they were reviewed narratively rather than systematically.
Four key themes emerged: (1) the number of times an applicants’ sexual orientation was raised as a credibility issue. Credibility judgements based on sexual orientation are frequently cited as reasons to reject cases.
(2) officials hold assumptions about sexual minorities’ identity formation, behaviour, and experiences that contradict psychological evidence. For example, that asylum seekers are familiar with LGBTQ+ culture. These assumptions are commonly based on Western notions and are not inclusive of different cultures.
(3) officials’ criteria for evaluating applicants’ testimonies and supporting evidence. Officials will form negative credibility assessments if applicants’ testimonies are not considered detailed or plausible e.g., behaviour is deemed as too risky to be true, or they disclose their sexual orientation late within the case.
(4) strategies asylum-seekers are compelled to adopt when presenting their claims. Asylum seekers feel compelled to adjust appearance and behaviour to fit Western stereotypes for favourable credibility judgements.
Overall, asylum practice needs to be improved to ensure valid case decisions, remembering the extreme consequences and threat to life of refusing an individual based on sexual orientation.
