The Symbolic Life of Courts: How Judicial Language, Actions, and Objects Legitimize Credibility Assessments of Asylum Appeals

Asylum determinations are highly complex and difficult decisions. At the heart of this decision lies a credibility assessment of the asylum claimant’s narrative, which confronts the decision-maker with a seemingly straightforward question: do I believe this person’s story? To uphold legitimacy of this assessment, semi-legal criteria have been established internationally. However, these criteria have been criticized for relying on inaccurate and simplistic assumptions about human behavior, autobiographical memory, and communication. In light of this contestation, I ask how the legal-administrative practice of assessing credibility of asylum applications gains legitimacy in the eyes of the public, policy-makers, and legal professionals despite resting on highly disputable assumptions? To answer this question, I draw on interviews, observations, and written judgements from the Swedish administrative courts to explore how symbolic messages are tacitly conveyed through the use of judicial language, activities, and objects. The analysis suggests that cohesive, albeit tacit, messages about credibility assessments being accurate (rather than arbitrary), objective (rather than subjective), professional (rather than lay), and just (rather than unjust) are produced to both near and distant audiences. The study contributes to the literature on credibility assessments by offering a theoretical perspective that can unpack the relationship between symbolic communication in courts and perceived legitimacy for disputed practices within asylum determinations and migration control.

Incorporating Sociolinguistic Perspectives in Australian Refugee Credibility Assessments: the Case of CRL18

Credibility assessments in asylum visa applications have attracted criticism across diverse research fields. This article builds on existing critical examinations by presenting a case study of a successful appeal in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) which overturned a decision involving one such problematic credibility assessment. The article establishes that credibility assessments often rely on flawed language ideologies and reasoning that transform the asylum seeker into the sole participant responsible for the texts produced in institutional processes. As a contrast, it then explores the FCA decision, analysing the judge’s treatment of three different premises on which the lower-level rejection relied. It demonstrates how, when dealing with each of these premises, the judge’s approach aligns with sociolinguistic scholarship. The case study demonstrates the potential of sociolinguistic awareness to denaturalize the problematic ideologies underlying credibility assessments. However, the article equally acknowledges and discusses the systemic limitations on challenging credibility assessments, due to the narrow scope for judicial review, and the need for professional legal assistance to argue one’s case successfully. The article concludes that while credibility assessments serve to act as a powerful gatekeeping tool to support increasingly restrictive asylum policy, judicial receptiveness of sociolinguistic understandings of communication can sometimes provide an avenue for successful appeals. It thus provides a powerful example of the potential benefits of communicating sociolinguistic research to law students, legal practitioners and decision-makers.