Interactions and Identities in UK Asylum Appeals: Lawyers and Law in a Quasi-Legal Setting

Abstract

This chapter explores the complex nature of refugee determination through the experiences and work of lawyers in asylum appeals at the UK First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). It highlights the dilemma whereby asylum appeals are generally anticipated to be determined within a system of legal norms, whereas what is frequently encountered is the exclusionary politics of immigration control. Key to analysis here is an exploration of the significance of relationships and communication between tribunal actors situated in multiple, intersecting social fields. By looking at professional backgrounds, personal relationships and organisational dynamics, we gain a sense of how legal values of fairness and justice in refugee determination procedures are so often subsumed by political, administrative and economic concerns to control migration.

The Judicial Assessment of ‘Expert Evidence’ in the United Kingdom’s Immigration and Asylum Chamber

“…They may decide that an expert has wrongly assumed the role of an advocate for an appellant and reject his/her evidence, IJs may decide that the evidence experts submit is wrong or insufficient and refuse the claim, or they may decide that an expert is qualified to provide evidence and accept their evidence. In all cases, expert evidence is not the sole or even the most important element of an asylum claim because the principle rationale driving decision making appears to be a desire to uphold immigration enforcement to prevent 'migrants'-including the majority of those seeking asylum-from entering the country rather than arriving at a fair decision (Hambly 2019).…”

Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: a critical discourse analysis

“…52 Guidelines, para 12. 53 See examples of these contributions in Smith-Khan (2017b, 2019c); Hambly (2019); Bohmer and Shuman (2007b). 54 Guidelines, para 21.…”

“…110 This argument is equally relevant in the context of migration decision-making, based on my study, and is arguably even more problematic in this setting, where there are serious concerns about a 106 Tipton (2008); van der Kleij (2015). 107 Hambly (2019). 108 For a discussion on the tensions between institutional and legal requirements and free narrative production, see for example Vogl (2013).…”

The metapragmatics of legal advice communication in the field of immigration law

“…It is, however, crucial that scholarly attention is devoted to this setting, as the discursive events that surround the asylum procedure are of a high stake nature, with communicative moves determining whether an applicant is granted international protection or not. Language research that does shed light on this backstage counselling practice (Bohmer and Shuman 2007;Hambly 2019;Reynolds 2020; Smith-Khan 2020) often relies on self-reported data, case files or a limited amount of interactional data. Although highly interesting insights have been gained about the lawyer-client relationship, the employment of multilingual strategies and the discursive construction of credibility, I believe that a fine-grained pragmatic inquiry into the interactional dynamics of legal advice communication in the context of immigration law demands an ethnographic lens.…”