What assumptions about human behaviour underlie asylum judgments?

  • Herlihy J
  • Gleeson K
  • Turner S
  • 26

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 28

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

In order to claim recognition as a refugee, individuals must give a ‘plausible’ account of persecution. Decision makers must then decide on the truthfulness of the account, and whether the person fits the legal definition of a refugee. Decision makers often have little corroborating evidence, and must make an assessment of credibility, largely a subjective response, involving a reliance on assumptions about human behaviour, judgements, attitudes, and how a truthful account is presented. This article describes a study of the assumptions in judgments made by UK immigration judges. Assumptions were defined and a coding structure used to systematically extract a list of assumptions from a series of written determinations. These assumptions were then submitted to an inductive thematic analysis. The resulting themes are compared briefly to the psychological and psychiatric literature, raising the question of whether assumptions used in asylum decision making are in line with current empirical evidence about human behaviour. The article recommends cross-disciplinary research to build an evidence base in order to help inform the decision making process in this crucial area of law.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

  • Jane Herlihy

  • Kate Gleeson

  • Stuart Turner

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free