Trauma and the Paradox of Asylum Seekers’ Credibility
By: Jennifer Umberg
Publisher: [publisher not identified]
Published: 2017
Place of publication: [New York, N.Y.?]
Language: eng
Description: Oftentimes those ﬂeeing persecution have only their testimony as evidence for their asylum claims. This leaves asylum ofﬁcers and Immigration Judges with the task of assessing the credibility of each individual’s story. If an applicant is found not credible, his or her claim for asylum status will likely be denied and have little chance to successfullyﬁghtthedecisiononappeal. Despite the importance of credibility determinations in asylum cases,ofﬁcers and Immigration Judges are afforded highly subjective leeway for their assessments, and advised by law to analyze applicants’ “demeanor” and “candor.” The credibility assessment presents a unique conundrum: asylum seekerswhoaretraumatized(oftentimesduetothereasonstheyﬂedpersecution)mayhave a more challenging time presenting a coherent testimony. Those without access to legal counsel—oranadvocatetorequestanafﬁdavitfrommentalhealthexperts—aresubject to the whim of judges and ofﬁcers who take the asylum seeker’s testimony as untrue. This paper examines the ways in which the U.S. asylum system discriminates against applicants with trauma-related psychosocial disorders.

In particular, it examines who gains access to mental health experts as a means to support their testimony, and ways in which this evidence is used. The lack of quality control with regards to asylum cases offers unique insight into how part of the U.S. legal system is stacked against some of the most vulnerable claimants, intended to be protected under U.S. law.
Notes: Department: Institute for the Study of Human Rights.

Thesis advisor: J. Paul Martin.

Thesis (M.A.)--Columbia University, 2017.