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

Abstract

Whether those seeking asylum can be believed is a central concern in both public discourse and institutional processes. As a result, credibility assessments have become an important component of the latter. This article contributes to existing scholarship on credibility assessments by critically examining the discourse and related 'language ideologies' underlying them. The examination includes published tribunal decisions on appeals of institutional rejections of asylum-seeker applications, and the tribunal's official credibility assessment guidelines. It considers how constructions of language and diversity affect the way credibility is assessed in visa decision-making. In the application process, sole authorship of the texts produced is discursively assigned to the asylum-seekers. This discourse is problematic as it constructs credibility as attaching to them alone. However, this contradicts the sociolinguistic realities: the texts produced in this setting are institutionally controlled and result from the interaction of multiple participants. The examination also demonstrates how the essentialisation of culture and linguistic diversity can create implausibility. Institutional discourse thus creates serious challenges for applicants, who must communicate 'credibly' to gain protection, even though this communication and its evaluation are far from wholly within their control.

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

“…A sociolinguistic lens tells us that this is problematic because in reality, these texts are created in interaction with and with contributions from a range of actors, including, of course, the decision-maker who asks questions and writes the final decisions and other participants such as legal advisors and interpreters (Eades, 2012;Jacobs & Maryns, 2021;Maryns, 2013a;Reynolds, 2020). Furthermore, the whole process is guided and constrained by legal and procedural requirements that undoubtedly influence what is said, when and how (Smith-Khan, 2018.…”

Tinjauan Kritis Statements Para Tokoh Tentang Kasus Tanah Golo Mori dalam Pemberitaan Media Massa Daring (Critical Review of Personages Statements About the Golo Mori Land Dispute in the Online Mass Media Reportation)

“…Dalam pernyataannya pemberi pernyataan menggunakan kata dugaan. Dari sisi argumentasi dalam konstruksi wacana, diksi ini mengandung makna indikasi, sehingga pemberi pernyataan perlu membuktikannya dengan sederetan fakta (Abbas, 2021;Smith-Khan, 2019).…”

Managing narratives, managing identities: Language and credibility in legal consultations with asylum seekers

“…This brings home the performative nature of the testimony (Zagor 2014) and highlights how the contributions of the lawyer are rendered invisible. This erasure of the lawyer's active input is ‘necessary’, as the legitimacy of the government's credibility assessment is dependent on the asylum seeker being the only one responsible for his refugee narrative (Smith-Khan 2020a).…”

“…Asylum seekers are invited to ‘tell their story’ but are ultimately assessed on ‘textualist’ criteria of consistency and detail (Maryns 2006). To be deemed credible, applicants are expected to function as the sole author of their own refugee narrative (Smith-Khan 2020a), yet the authorities require them to formulate their claims in a manner that is almost unattainable without the help of legal professionals.…”