Answering the research questions

In this research, I aimed to answer the question “how do NGO workers support LGBTI(Q+) asylum seekers to develop a credible narrative when preparing for a repeated asylum claim?” To answer this question, I developed two sub-questions, the answers to which I discuss in the section below.

7.2.1 Sub-question one

What are the IND’s demands for a credible LGBTI(Q+) asylum narrative?

In chapter 5, I discussed what demands the IND places on LGBTI(Q+) applicants’ narratives to perceive them as truthful. I found that there are demands placed both on the content and the shape of the narrative. My data suggests that the IND draws on normative ideas about (love) relationships and (homo)sexuality when assessing LGBTI(Q+) asylum seekers, expecting that applicants experience relationships and sexuality in these particular ways if they are ‘really’

LGBTI(Q+). The data further indicated that the IND expects applicants to be able to reflect on their emotions and experiences in an abstract manner. I found that these expectations are often implicit,

as the IND requests applicants to tell an ‘authentic’ story. However, when applicants relate truly authentic experiences that do not fit the IND’s normative frame of reference, they struggle to be perceived as credible.

Furthermore, the data suggest that LGBTI(Q+) asylum seekers must tell their story

coherently, consistently, with a high level of detail, chronologically, and with many examples to be perceived as credible. I found that these narrative demands mean that an applicant must tell ‘a good story’ to be seen as truthful. It is critical to note that the data suggests these demands emerge in a context of distrust, where mistakes are often perceived by the IND as a marker of a fraudulent claim rather than as a result of personal, psychological, or cultural factors. Participants described a power imbalance in the application process, where applicants only have their narrative as a tool to make their LGBTI(Q+) identity and their experiences credible. Thus, the IND’s demands address both the content and shape of LGBTI(Q+) asylum narratives. Applicants who cannot align their stories with these requirements struggle to be understood as ‘credibly’ LGBTI(Q+).

7.2.2 Sub-question two

How do NGO workers prepare LGBTI(Q+) clients for a repeated asylum claim?

In section 3.2.2, I described how asylum seekers whose claim has gotten rejected can file a repeated asylum claim. For one of these HASAs, applicants need to present new facts or

circumstances (a novum), while all the information they provided in a previous claim is assumed by the IND to be true. If a new claim is taken into consideration by the IND, it is even more important that LGBTI(Q+) asylum seekers narrate their experiences credibly, as repeated claims are generally more strictly scrutinized than first claims. These requirements make it difficult for (LGBTI(Q+)) asylum seekers to file a HASA independently. Instead, NGOs for undocumented migrants provide them with legal and social support to prepare for a repeated claim.

In chapter 6, I outlined the practices NGO workers engage in to prepare LGBTI clients for a repeated claim. I found that in the preparation process, NGO workers familiarize themselves with the client and their case, help a client practice their story, connect a client with other support actors, and compile a casefile. The data suggest that NGO workers first get a client’s story clear and ask questions to elicit all the information and reflections that they see as relevant for the client’s claim. Research participant accounts suggest that a crucial aiding factor for this process is the trust bond that exists between clients and their NGO contact person, which NGO workers believed made a client feel more comfortable to discuss their personal experiences and emotions. The NGO

workers try to make clients aware of their emotions and thought processes, and stimulated the client to practice speaking openly about them. Furthermore, the data suggest that NGO workers can help a client structure their experiences into a chronological and coherent story, with reflections, examples, and a high level of detail. I found that they do this by providing the client with

instructions on how to testify during the IND hearing, while also assessing a client’s story and giving feedback on how to better fit it into the IND’s format. The data points towards a noteworthy tension between NGO workers on the one hand wanting to keep the story ‘authentically’ that of the client, whilst on the other hand helping a client provide the content and structure that the NGO worker knows is necessary for a ‘credible’ claim.

7.2.3 Main research question

How do NGO workers support LGBTI(Q+) asylum seekers to develop a credible narrative when preparing for a repeated asylum claim?

Based on the answers to my two sub-questions, I can now provide an answer to my main research question. I found that NGO workers make LGBTI(Q+) asylum narratives credible by tailoring clients’ narratives to what the IND expects of a credible narrative. The NGO workers have and share knowledge about what the IND sees as credible LGBTI(Q+) asylum narratives. They use this knowledge as a basis for the preparation process, as they help a client structure their

experiences into the format that the IND expects of a credible narrative, through instructions, guiding comments, and questions. By asking questions, they elicit relevant information from the client that they know is necessary for a strong claim. Further, I found that they help the applicant structure their experiences into a ‘good story’ by helping them order their experiences

chronologically and guiding them to discuss their experiences in a detailed, reflexive, consistent, and coherent way, and to include many illustrative examples. Ultimately, they support the client in narrating their experiences in a way that ‘takes the IND official along’ in their story.

Using their knowledge of the IND’s demands, they further assess whether a client’s

narrative will be seen as credible by the IND, and provide feedback to strengthen points of the story they believe might be seen as ‘weak.’ Lastly, they work to improve their client’s ‘performance’ at the IND hearing, by having clients practice telling their story in the shape the IND expects, but also by making people reflect on and feel comfortable to talk about their emotions and their sexuality. Part of this practicing includes instructing clients on how to answer the IND’s questions at their actual asylum hearing. I conclude that NGO workers make LGBTI(Q+) asylum narratives credible by

assessing how well a client’s story will fit into the IND’s demands for a credible narrative and shaping the narrative to fit these expectations. They shape the narrative by eliciting relevant information, (re)structuring the story, and by practicing with the client how to narrate their experiences.