Two years ago, during my internship, I worked on the Juris Database, which contains human rights violation cases from the United Nations Human Rights Commission. I encountered numerous cases arguing the unlawful deportation of asylum seekers. The most memorable ones for me involved sexual and religious minorities. 

What struck me was not the claims themselves but the problematic process these people had to go through to prove their sexual or religious identity. The questions they faced were very personal and private and, in my view, bordered on violating the right to privacy. 

I knew I wanted to explore this issue further. 

To gain deeper insights, I interviewed Yasmin Yusuf, an experienced advocate for LGBTQI asylum seekers, and Hedayat Selim, a PhD candidate researching the intersection of investigative interviewing and asylum law. Their perspectives shed light on the complex and often flawed credibility assessment process faced by LGBTQI asylum seekers.

Understanding the Process

The asylum-seeking process begins when an individual fleeing persecution applies for asylum in a host country. Upon arrival in the host country, the asylum seeker must file an application. This application triggers a credibility assessment, where the applicant must provide a detailed account of their experiences and reasons for seeking asylum. 

Immigration officials or judges evaluate the applicant's testimony's consistency, detail, and plausibility, often considering evidence like documents, witness statements, and expert reports. The credibility assessment aims to determine if the asylum seeker's fear is genuine and if they qualify for protection under international law. The applicant may receive legal assistance throughout this process and is generally entitled to a fair hearing.

Credibility assessment is the most challenging aspect of asylum-seeking. Officials must navigate complex narratives often shaped by trauma memory limitations and cultural differences in communication. These difficulties are even more pronounced for sexual minorities seeking asylum. 

Disclosure of sexual orientation can be delayed or avoided due to stigma, internalised homophobia, or doubts about interview confidentiality. Often lacking specialised training, officials may inadvertently rely on stereotypes or inappropriate questioning, further complicating the process.

Yasmin Yusuf, an expert for social and youth services at Helsinki Pride, has spent years advocating for the rights of LGBTQI asylum seekers in Finland. Yasmin also plays a crucial role beyond advocacy by providing individual counselling and support to LGBTQI asylum seekers. This includes assisting them with preparing written statements and navigating oral hearings. 

Drawing on her extensive experience, Yasmin shares insights on the credibility assessment for sexual minorities.

"Previously, the focus was on sexual acts and behaviours," Yasmin recalls. 

"Now, the emphasis has shifted to an identity-based evaluation. This requires individuals to articulate their entire identity journey, from childhood reflections to societal impacts, a narrative deeply rich in personal details."

Despite some improvements, such as increased access to legal representation and safer reception centres, challenges persist. 

"Not every gay person fits the stereotype of being openly active in queer organisations," Yasmin points out. 

"But asylum interviews often include questions about activism and participation in queer spaces, which can be uncomfortable and unrealistic for many."

Hedayat Selim, a PhD candidate at Åbo Akademi University, researching asylum decision-making processes, provides a critical academic perspective. Her investigation into interview transcripts reveals that asylum determinations are only partly in line with psychological evidence on investigative interviewing principles.

"Early on, officials in various European countries often suggested that LGBTQI+ individuals could avoid persecution by being discreet," Hedayat explains. 

"This was a clear human rights violation; thankfully, European high courts have since banned this reasoning."

Hedayat's research indicates that many asylum claims are rejected based on a perceived lack of credibility rather than substantive evidence.

"Officials often rely on Western-centric assumptions about how sexual minorities should behave," she notes. 

"These stereotypes may lead to dismissing claims that don't fit preconceived notions."

Moreover, the nature of questioning in asylum interviews poses significant hurdles. 

"Only about 20 percent of questions are open-ended," Hedayat observes. 

The rest are closed questions, limiting applicants' ability to describe their experiences fully. This approach not only stifles the narrative depth needed for a credible claim but also fails to capture the wide variability in how people express and describe their sexual minority status.

The lack of external proof and the intensely personal nature of LGBTQI+ asylum claims further complicate matters. 

"Unlike political asylum claims that can be fact-checked against external sources, sexual minority claims often rely solely on personal testimony, making them vulnerable to subjective interpretations," Hedayat points out.

Psychology as an essential variable

The asylum process is inherently stressful and fraught with uncertainty, but for LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, these challenges are compounded by unique psychological burdens.

"For many LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, the process begins with uncertainty and fear. They may not even know that sexual orientation can be grounds for asylum," Yasmin emphasises, 

Hedayat adds that the asylum process itself can further destabilise the psychological state of asylum seekers. 

"The process requires them to recount and relive their traumatic experiences repeatedly, which can exacerbate their psychological distress."

A significant psychological barrier for LGBTQI+ asylum seekers is the fear and mistrust of authorities stemming from past persecution. 

"Asylum seekers may be reluctant to disclose sensitive information about their sexual orientation due to fear of judgement or repercussions. This is particularly challenging when interpreters belong to the same community, as there is an added fear of confidentiality breaches," Hedayat notes.

The shift from evaluating sexual acts to an identity-based evaluation in asylum interviews has introduced new psychological pressures. 

"Applicants are now expected to provide detailed and coherent narratives about their identity development, feelings, and emotions from childhood to the present. This expectation is rooted in a very Western and linear perspective of identity, which can be difficult for non-Western applicants to articulate," Yasmin explains.

Hedayat's findings align with this, noting that the reliance on Western-centric assumptions and stereotypes often leads to credibility issues. 

"Officials may have preconceived notions of how LGBTQI+ individuals should behave and live, and when applicants do not fit these stereotypes, their claims are often disregarded."

Both Yasmin and Hedayat stress the importance of adequate support systems and mental health services in mitigating the psychological impacts on LGBTQI+ asylum seekers. Yasmin highlights the improvements in Finland's reception centres, which now more frequently provide access to legal representatives and direct clients to LGBTQI+ specific organisations and support services. 

"Creating a safe environment where asylum seekers feel comfortable disclosing their queer identity is crucial for their overall well-being and the success of their asylum claims."

However, gaps remain. Yasmin points out that the system is still flawed despite some positive changes. 

"Short interviews, inadequate translators, and the lack of early legal representation continue to pose significant challenges. The psychological state of the asylum seekers, compounded by these systemic issues, often leads to a cycle of distress and mistrust."

The Path Forward

Improving the credibility assessment process for LGBTQI asylum seekers requires a multifaceted approach. Training for asylum officials on cultural sensitivity and the complexities of queer identities is crucial. 

Yasmin and Hedayat both emphasised the need for a more inclusive and culturally aware approach. Officials must understand that LGBTQI identities do not fit neatly into Western narratives and that trauma can significantly impact an individual's ability to articulate their story.

Legal representation from the start of the asylum process can also make a significant difference. Ensuring that asylum seekers have access to knowledgeable lawyers who can advocate on their behalf helps to balance the power dynamics and improve the chances of a fair hearing. 

Moreover, improving translation services by employing translators with expertise in queer vocabulary and cultural nuances can prevent misunderstandings and ensure accurate communication.

Addressing the psychological needs of LGBTQI asylum seekers is another critical area. Providing access to mental health services and creating safe, supportive environments in reception centres can help individuals process their trauma and better engage with the asylum process. 

"Social and healthcare play a big part in the asylum process. If people don't feel comfortable or safe, they won't be able to tell their story in a credible way," Yasmin highlights. 

Finally, raising awareness about the rights of LGBTQI asylum seekers is essential. Many individuals do not realise that their sexual orientation can be grounds for asylum. Outreach and education efforts can empower asylum seekers to understand their rights and navigate the process more effectively.