.png)
Article by Gezana Rai | January 20, 2025 | Global Rights Defenders
Introduction
Credibility assessments play a central role in UK asylum applications, determining whether an applicant’s story is believed to be truthful and coherent. They occur after the initial asylum application and interviews, but before the final decision is made. If an applicant’s story is deemed to be lacking credibility, they will fail this assessment and their claim will be refused. Lack of credibility is the most common reason for asylum claim refusals in the UK, highlighting its significance within the asylum framework[1].
Decision-makers of asylum cases rely heavily on the applicant’s narrative – its consistency, detail, and plausibility – especially when other documentation or evidence is limited. Although the threshold for proving key facts is set intentionally low, so many asylum claims are rejected under the credibility standards due to the rigidity of the framework[2]. For asylum seekers who have endured profound trauma, memory and communication challenges often lead to inconsistencies and factual discrepancies. There is a disconnect between the asylum system’s expectations and the realities of trauma, and the UK’s credibility assessments are in desperate need of a more compassionate, trauma-informed approach.
In the UK
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) advises that inconsistencies or omissions in testimony should not been solely seen as deceit. Instead, fragmented narratives brought on by trauma must be understood in context, and interviews should be conducted in such a way that fosters trust with survivors of persecution[3]. Unfortunately, recent changes under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 represent a step backward in recognising the effects of trauma. The Act raised the evidentiary standard from a ‘reasonable degree of likelihood’ to a ‘balance of probabilities’, and this law therefore places greater pressure on applicants to present clear, coherent testimonies[4]. This burden disproportionately affects those with trauma, whose memory gaps and difficulties recalling events in sequence may falls short of the heightened standard. The stress of meeting these demands often aggravates symptoms of trauma, PTSD, and other mental health challenges[5].
Narrative Structure and Behaviour
Research shows that traumatic memories are often fragmented and incomplete, appearing as vivid, sensory ‘snapshots’ rather than a linear story[6]. Trauma tends to disrupt peripheral details, and studies reveal that people with PTSD are more likely to have inconsistency in recalling facts, particularly about minor details[7]. Survivors often struggle to tell their stories sequentially, as memories can be triggered unpredictably by certain abstract cues. For example, a survivor of sexual violence recounted how discussing her past during a Home Office interview triggered flashbacks, making it difficult for her to remember events clearly[8].
Beyond narrative structure, an applicant’s behaviour and demeanour are also scrutinised during interviews, affecting their credibility. Some survivors may act numb or disassociated, while others might display heightened emotional responses, as trauma affects behaviour in diverse ways[9]. In addition to this, gender dynamics and cultural differences can add further barriers, with some claimants reluctant to discuss sensitive topics such as domestic violence or sexual assault with decision-makers of a different gender, or in front of their children, as many applicants are made to do[10]. Distrust of the decision-maker, potentially borne out of a fear of authority figures for those fleeing persecution from their home state, may also hinder full disclosure.
Conclusion
The UK’s current approach to credibility assessments often penalises trauma survivors for inconsistencies rooted in stress rather than dishonesty. To create a fairer system, it is essential to adopt trauma-informed practices that recognise fragmented memories and disrupted narratives as natural responses to traumatic experiences. By addressing structural biases and implementing more compassionate policies, the UK can build a system that closes the gap between perceived credibility and the lived realities of those seeking refuge.
How can we help?
We can play a vital role in advocating for and supporting a more trauma-informed asylum system in the UK.
Educate yourself and others
Learn about the asylum process, the challenges faced by asylum seekers, and the effects of trauma on memory and behaviour
Share this knowledge with friends, family, and your wider community to combat misconceptions and stigma around asylum seekers
Advocate for policy change
Write to your MP, expressing concerns about the asylum system, either specifically the lack of trauma-informed practices in credibility assessments, or voicing general concerns
Support organisations and campaigns that push for reforms in asylum policies, such as reversing the regressive changes in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022
Use your social media platforms to amplify the voices of asylum seekers and raise awareness about systemic issues
Support training initiatives
Advocate for mandatory trauma-informed training for decision-makers in the asylum system, including Home Office staff, legal representatives, and interpreters
Contribute to or fundraise for organisations that provide such training or directly assist asylum seekers
Volunteer and donate
Volunteer with charities and NGOs that work with asylum seekers that support claimants in navigating the system and addressing trauma
Provide financial or in-kind donations to shelters, food banks, and mental health services specifically aimed at asylum seekers
Offering direct support
Become a community sponsor or join a local group that supports refugees and asylum seekers. This could involve helping with housing, language skills, or accessing healthcare and education
Offer empathy and a listening ear. Small acts of kindness can make a huge difference to someone rebuilding their life
References
[1] Chambers, Richmond, 2019. ‘Credibility in asylum claims’, Richmond Chambers Immigration Barristers. Available at: https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/credibility-in-asylum-claims/
[2] Home Office, 2015, Asylum Policy Instruction: Assessing Credibility and Refugee Status, Version 9.0
[3] UNHCR, 2019, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, paras 199, 203
[4] Nationality and Borders Act, 2022, Section 32
[5] Schock et al., 2015, Impact of asylum interviews on the mental health of traumatised asylum seekers, European journal of psychotraumatology, 6(1), 3
[6] Herlihy & Turner, 2007, Asylum claims and memory of trauma: sharing our knowledge, British Journal of Psychiatry, 191(1), 3
[7] Herlihy et al., 2002, Discrepancies in autobiographical memories – implications for the assessment of asylum seekers: repeated interviews study BMJ, 324
[8] Bögner et al., 2007, Impact of sexual violence on disclosure during Home Office interviews (2007), The British Journal of Psychiatry, 191(1), 75 at 78
[9] Lustig, 2008, Symptoms of trauma among political asylum applicants: don’t be fooled, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 31(6), 726
[10] Mighetto, 2016, The contingency of credibility: gender-related persecution, traumatic memory and Home Office interviews, SOAS LJ, 3
Comments