Fact-finding in asylum cases

To qualify as a refugee, asylum seekers must have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin due to reasons of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or membership in a particular social group. Assessing the origin and identity of, and alleged acts of persecution against, the applicant is a key element of asylum procedures. Due to a general scarcity of documentary evidence, the decision to grant or deny international protection largely depends on a credibility assessment of the applicant’s oral statements. The study of interviewing and decision-making practices in asylum cases is relatively new to legal psychology. Some best practices in criminal fact-finding procedures, however, translate to the assessment of asylum claims. Even though the evidentiary and legal context of asylum procedures differs from criminal proceedings, the investigative tools and decision-making processes also show similarities. This chapter summarizes the available empirical evidence and uses insights from legal, psychological research to discuss the effectiveness of current interviewing practices and credibility assessments in asylum cases.