Five language myths about refugee credibility

In a world where public debates about refugees and asylum seekers often focus on whether they are telling the truth, it should probably come as no surprise that government processes for evaluating asylum claims emphasize assessing applicant credibility.

These credibility assessments have – rightly – attracted ample criticism from scholars across multiple disciplines for many years now. From the earliest critiques, scholarly commentary has acknowledged that the asylum process is a site of intercultural communication and suggested that many of the issues with credibility assessment relate to this. Credibility assessment guidance itself also acknowledges that asylum seekers have different social and cultural backgrounds to those of decision-makers and includes suggestions on how to accommodate these differences.

Focusing on communication makes sense, given that the indicators used to measure asylum seekers’ credibility generally relate to communication. These include evaluating asylum seekers on how consistently they communicate across various interactions and written texts (internal consistency), and how well their narrative aligns with officially preferred sources of knowledge relating to their home country and social group. Officials may also refer to the level of detail in their communication, and even to their demeanor, when explaining whether or not they find them credible.

In my doctoral research, I brought a fresh angle to scrutinizing these processes by critically examining the discourses about language, communication and diversity underlying the credibility assessment guidance provided to Australian officials reviewing refugee visa applications, as well as a collection of publicly available decisions. By conducting a critical discourse analysis I uncovered a set of problematic language myths on which these credibility assessments rely.

Language myth #1: Texts are produced by individuals in isolation

The first language myth is that individuals, in this case asylum seekers, can produce (written or spoken) texts alone. This false assumption leads to the idea that it is legitimate and possible to analyse and compare texts attributed to asylum seekers to determine whether their performance demonstrates credibility.

This is highly problematic because texts produced in the process of applying for asylum are closely dictated by legal and procedural requirements. They are also the product of the interaction of a variety of actors, such as the officials who ask questions and determine the conduct and content of interviews, legal advisors who sometimes speak and often write on behalf of their clients and offer them a range of advice on what to say and how. They may even be the products of multiple languages when interpreters are involved.

Language myth #2: A truthful narrator has one single story

The second language myth is that a truthful narrator will recount an event or other information consistently over time, and across different contexts. This false assumption leads to the idea that isolated fragments of text, removed from their original context, can provide evidence of deception.

For example, in my study, one applicant was judged to be lying because he told about an injury he had received to his ‘arm’ in one document and to his ‘shoulder’ in a later interaction. The applicant explained that he did not have access to an interpreter during the preparation of the earlier document and his English was not good enough to distinguish between these two body parts.

Language myth #3: Bilinguals are fully proficient in all their languages

The ‘arm’ vs ‘shoulder’ example brings us to yet another language myth that informs assessments of refugee credibility: officials’ poor understandings of bilingualism. The asylum seeker mentioned above had explained that he used the word ‘arm’ when putting together a statement with a migration lawyer with whom he spoke English, without the assistance of an interpreter, and this is why he had used this more general term rather than the more specific ‘shoulder’.

This claim is easy to accept when we have a nuanced understanding of what it means to be bilingual. Bilinguals usually have different levels of proficiency in their languages. Yet, decision makers usually expect bilinguals to have equal, complete fluency across all their languages. This often leads to the dismissal of explanations related to lack of access to interpreting.

This language myth makes it seem irrelevant whether an applicant communicated through a language they spoke well or not, or whether they had access to interpreting. Conveniently, this language myth provides an easy justification for decreasing public funding for language services.

Language myth #4: The decision maker is outside the interaction

Decision-makers themselves are important co-producers of the refugee narrative and of the official record of the asylum hearing. They ask the questions, and control who can speak and when. They draw on their own experiences and understandings of the world to make sense of asylum seekers’ stories. They also assess any explanations given for credibility-related concerns, drawing on their own beliefs about language in deciding how and whether to give these explanations weight.

Yet, their role in the interaction is routinely erased. Institutional guidance presents the decision-making process as one in which uniformity across different decision-makers is possible, and in which these individuals are able to set aside their “subjective beliefs”. This overlooks the inherently evaluative nature of these processes, discourages critical self-reflection and thus minimizes the decision-maker’s role in constructing asylum seeker credibility.

Language myth #5: Acknowledging intercultural communication ensures fairness

Credibility assessment guidance for refugee visa decision-makers explicitly acknowledges intercultural communication and scope for misunderstandings. However, a vague acknowledgement of intercultural communication may in fact reinforce language myths that entrench existing inequalities and disadvantage minority groups because they are hidden behind the label “intercultural communications”.

The language myths on which credibility assessment guidance is based undermine the fairness of these assessments. Asylum seekers are held responsible for texts whose production are beyond their individual control, variation between decision-makers is under-acknowledged, and the importance of interpreting and legal assistance minimized. Busting these myths challenges the credibility of credibility assessments themselves. To ensure fair processes, these types of assessments should play, at most, a minimal role within refugee decision-making processes. Too much is at stake to rely on inherently unfair assessments, especially in the face of insufficient legal assistance and antagonistic public discourse.

References

Smith-Khan, L. (2020). Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: A critical discourse analysis, (online, advance).
Smith-Khan, L. (2019a). Communicative resources and credibility in public discourse on refugees. Language in Society, 48(3), 403-427.
Smith-Khan, L. (2019b). Debating credibility: Refugees and rape in the media. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 4-36.
Smith-Khan, L. (2019c). Migration practitioners’ roles in communicating credible refugee claims. Alternative Law Journal (online, advance).
Smith-Khan, L. (2018). Contesting credibility in Australian refugee visa decision making and public discourse. (Doctor of Philosophy), Macquarie University.
Smith-Khan, L. (2017a). Different in the same way? Language, diversity and refugee credibility. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(3), 389-416.
Smith-Khan, L. (2017b). Negotiating narratives, accessing asylum: Evaluating language policy as multi-level practice, beliefs and management. Multilingua, 36(1): 31-57.
Smith-Khan, L. (2017c). Telling stories: Credibility and the representation of social actors in Australian asylum appeals. Discourse & Society, 28(5), 512-534.