‘How would you define your sexuality?’ analyzing the questions asked in official asylum interviews with sexual minorities
Asylum interviews are conducted to assess the fears expressed by asylum seekers and to determine the reasons behind their unwillingness or inability to return to their country of habitual residence. Based on assessments, asylum officials decide whether to grant refugee status.
Previous research on interviews has typically examined a wide range of cases, highlighting the need for more focused investigations. In the present study, the Psych-Aid project led by Hedayat et al. analysed 129 Finnish asylum cases involving claims based on sexual orientation. The study aimed to examine the interviewing style, the type of questions asked and the content of those questions.
Regarding questioning style, the findings were promising: asylum officials mostly employed an information-gathering style, allowing applicants to freely narrate their experiences in a non-confrontational setting.
In terms of question type, officials rarely used suggestive or forced-choice questions, which can compromise the quality of the applicants’ statements. However, the interviews were largely composed of closed-ended and yes/no questions. This limits the applicants’ ability to provide a detailed response, which may subsequently adversely affect the evaluation their credibility.
Finally, concerning question content, more than half of the questions focused on evaluating the credibility of the applicants’ sexual orientation, with relatively few addressing the actual experiences of persecution. This imbalance may prevent officials from adequately considering the underlying factors contributing to the persecution and the potential risks applicants face if returned to their country of origin.
In summary, the findings call on asylum authorities to encourage asking more open-ended questions and to centre interviews around the persecution experience by applicants. All other considerations should serve as complementary. This will support fair and accurate asylum decisions. Training programs and further research are key to improving practice.
