Chapter 7: Discussion and conclusion
7.6 Reflections and concluding remarks
During my research and internship, I learned much more than I have been able to describe in this thesis. At SUM, the injustices of global ‘Departheid’ (Kalir, 2019) are visible every day, and I learned a lot by being exposed to migrants’ stories. I also prepared an LGBTI(Q+) client for an asylum claim. I brought in the knowledge I had gathered during interviews and from literature, which helped me understand what I needed to do to make the claim ‘credible.’ However, all this knowledge also made me anxious for this client: what if her story is not ‘good enough?’ While her story deeply touched me, sometimes it felt like helping her fit her story into the ‘mold’ of a credible asylum narrative prevented me from hearing her experiences as a fellow human being. At times, I was only focused on how we could instrumentalize her experiences to substantiate her claim. In the process of working with my colleagues to find ways in which clients can receive a residency permit
in the Netherlands, meeting the legal requirements for one person to ‘pass’ can sometimes deprioritize larger debates on how to change ‘the system’ (as they called it at SUM). It was only after taking some distance from the daily work at SUM that I could see that what I had researched was not only the practices through which NGOs try to make people ‘credible,’ but also what it says about the IND’s expectations that applicants need professional support to have their narrative recognized as ‘credible.’
There are still LGBTI(Q+) asylum seekers wrongfully rejected because the IND does not believe their sexuality. In this research, I addressed how NGOs help these asylum seekers become
‘credible’ in the eyes of the IND. With my research, I attempted to shed light on how difficult it can be for applicants to be perceived by the IND as ‘credibly’ LGBTI(Q+). The high demands make people who cannot adhere to the IND’s identity and narrative norms reliant on NGO workers. These NGO workers can help co-create applicants’ narratives using their knowledge about the legal-institutional demands for a credible narrative. By ‘translating’ applicants’ narratives into one that can be understood by the IND, the NGO workers make applicants’ LGBTI(Q+) identity ‘readable’ for the decision-maker. Understanding the practices NGO workers engage in to help clients become
‘credible’ in the eyes of the IND can provide a basis to further reflect on the requirements
(LGBTI(Q+)) asylum seekers must adhere to, to receive protection in the Netherlands. I hope this research serves as grounds to continue discussing the (il)legitimacy of these requirements and as a contribution to the discussion about how we want to shape our asylum and migration systems.
References
Akin, D. (2017). Queer asylum seekers: translating sexuality in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(3), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1243050
Amnesty International. (n.d.-a). Migranten zonder verblijfsrecht - vreemdelingendetentie en uitzetbeleid.
Amnesty International. Retrieved May 22, 2021, from https://www.amnesty.nl/wat-we-doen/themas/vluchtelingen-en-migranten/migranten-zonder-verblijfsrecht
Amnesty International. (n.d.-b). Ongedocumenteerden (illegalen) en uitgeprocedeerden. Amnesty International Encyclopedie. Retrieved May 27, 2021, from
https://www.amnesty.nl/encyclopedie/ongedocumenteerden-illegalen-en-uitgeprocedeerden Amnesty International. (2010). Vreemdelingendetentie: in strijd met mensenrechten. Update van het
rapport: The Netherlands: The detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers. Amnesty International.
Amores, J. J., Arcila-Calderón, C., & González-de-Garay, B. (2020). The Gendered Representation of Refugees Using Visual Frames in the Main Western European Media. Gender Issues, 37(4), 291–314.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S12147-020-09248-1
Andrade, V. L., Danisi, C., Dustin, M., Ferreira, N., & Held, N. (2020). Queering Asylum in Europe: A Survey Report.
Baldinger, D. (2015). Repeat Cases, Dublin Cases, Fast-Track National Proceedings. In Vertical Judicial Dialogues in Asylum Cases (pp. 482–495). Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Barsky, R. F. (2000). Arguing and Justifying: Assessing the Convention Refugees’ Choice of Moment, Motive and Host Country (1st ed.). Oxfordshire: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315262185 Bauder, H. (2013). Why We Should Use the Term Illegalized Immigrant. RCIS Research Brief No.2013/1.
Berg, L., & Millbank, J. (2009). Constructing the Personal Narratives of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Asylum Claimants. Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(2), 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fep010
Biswas, D., Toebes, B., Hjern, A., Ascher, H., & Norredam, M. (2012). Access to health care for undocumented migrants from a human rights perspective: A comparative study of Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Health and Human Rights, 14(2), 49–60.
Blommaert, J. (2001). Investigating narrative inequality: African asylum seekers’ stories in Belgium.
Discourse & Society, 12(4), 413–449.
Bögner, D., Herlihy, J., & Brewin, C. R. (2007). Impact of sexual violence on disclosure during Home Office interviews. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191(JULY), 75–81.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.106.030262
Bracke, S. (2012). From ‘saving women’ to ‘saving gays’: Rescue narratives and their dis/continuities.
European Journal of Women’s Studies, 19(2), 237–252.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506811435032
Brennan, S. F. (2016). Specter of the Fraud: Muslim Sexual Minorities and Asylum in the Netherlands.
Perspectives on Europe, 46(1), 75–79.
Brooks, P., & Gewirtz, P. D. (1996). Law’s Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 1(9), 1–21.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (Fourth edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buijs, L., Hekma, G., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2012). ‘As long as they keep away from me’: The paradox of antigay violence in a gay-friendly country: Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/1363460711422304, 14(6), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460711422304
Cabot, H. (2013). The social aesthetics of eligibility: NGO aid and indeterminacy in the Greek asylum process. American Ethnologist, 40(3), 452–466.
Chavannes, M. (2020, January 20). De regering bezuinigt op sociale advocatuur, terwijl twee derde van de gesubsidieerde zaken tegen de overheid loopt. De Correspondent.
https://decorrespondent.nl/10884/de-regering-bezuinigt-op-sociale-advocatuur-terwijl-twee-derde-van-de-gesubsidieerde-zaken-tegen-de-overheid-loopt/2373756015048-30729bb2 Coffey, G. (2003). The Credibility of Credibility Evidence at the Refugee Review Tribunal. International
Journal of Refugee Law, 15(3), 377–417.
Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M., & Lind, E. A. (1979). The Power of Language: Presentational Style in the Courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 1978(6), 1375. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372218
d’Ardenne, P., & Heke, S. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in post-traumatic stress disorder Part I:
Focus on psychological treatment. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 16(2), 213-226.
https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2014.16.2/SHEKE
de Vleeschhouwer, P. (2020, November 9). Wat als zelfs je relatie de IND er niet van overtuigt dat je gay bent? OneWorld. https://www.oneworld.nl/lezen/politiek/migratie/wat-als-zelfs-je-relatie-de-ind-er-niet-van-overtuigt-dat-je-gay-bent/
DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers (2nd ed.).
Lanham: Rowman AltaMira.
Diener, E., & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eastmond, M. (2007). Stories as Lived Experience: Narratives in Forced Migration Research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 248–264.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–
317.
Equaldex. (2022). LGBT Rights by Country & Travel Guide. Equaldex. https://www.equaldex.com/
Fargues, P. (2017). Four Decades of Undocumented Migration to Europe A Review of the Evidence.
International Organization for Migration (IOM).
Geertsema, K., Groenendijk, K., Grütters, C., Minderhoud, P., Nissen, E., Strik, T., Terlouw, A., & Zwaan, K.
(2021). Ongezien onrecht in het vreemdelingenrecht. Nederlands Juristenblad, 14, 1046–1053.
Gibb, R., & Good, A. (2014). Interpretation, translation and intercultural communication in refugee status determination procedures in the UK and France. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(3), 385–399.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2014). Rethinking the Economy with Thick Description and Weak Theory. Current Anthropology, 55(9), 147–153.
Good, A. (2011). Tales of Suffering: Asylum Narratives in the Refugee Status Determination Process. West Coast Line, 68(1), 78–87.
Greatrick, A. (2019). “Coaching” Queer. Hospitality and the Categorical Imperative of LGBTQ Asylum Seeking in Lebanon and Turkey. Migration and Society, 2(1), 98–106.
https://doi.org/10.3167/arms.2019.020110
Griffiths, M. (2015). “‘Here, Man Is Nothing!’”: Gender and Policy in an Asylum Context. Men and Masculinities, 18(4), 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X15575111
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hambly, J. (2019). Interactions and identities in UK asylum appeals: Lawyers and law in a quasi-legal setting. In N. Gill & A. Good (Eds.), Asylum determination in Europe (pp. 195–218). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
Herlihy, J., Gleeson, K., & Turner, S. (2010). What assumptions about human behaviour underlie asylum judgments? International Journal of Refugee Law, 22(3), 351–366.
Herlihy, J., Scragg, P., & Turner, S. (2002). Discrepancies in autobiographical memories — implications for the assessment of asylum seekers: Repeated interviews study. BMJ, 324(7333), 324–327.
Hermens, N., Kahmann, M., van Treeck, J., Out, M., & de Gruijter, M. (2021). Tussenevaluatie pilot Landelijke Vreemdelingenvoorzieningen. WODC.
Higginbottom, G. M. A. (2004). Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 12(1), 7–19.
Holland, M. (2018). Stories for Asylum: Narrative and Credibility in the United States’ Political Asylum Application. Refuge, 34(2), 85–93.
IND. (n.d.-a). Apply for asylum in the Netherlands . Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://ind.nl/en/asylum/Pages/Apply-for-asylum-in-the-Netherlands.aspx
IND. (n.d.-b). Herhaalde asielaanvraag (HASA) . Immigratie En Naturalisatiedienst. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://ind.nl/Paginas/Herhaalde-asielaanvraag.aspx
IND. (2015a). Werkinstructie 2014/10 - Inhoudelijke beoordeling asiel.
IND. (2015b). IND werkinstructie 2015/9. Horen en beslissen in zaken waarin LHBT-gerichtheid als asielmotief is aangevoerd.
IND. (2019). Werkinstructie 2019/17 - Horen en beslissen in zaken waarin lhbti-gerichtheid als asielmotief is aangevoerd.
IND. (2021a). Werkinstructie 2021/13 - Nader gehoor.
IND. (2021b, April 22). Wat betekent ‘zelfstandig vertrek zonder toezicht?’. IND: VreemdelingenVisie.
Retrieved May 26, 2021 from
https://www.vreemdelingenvisie.nl/vreemdelingenvisie/2021/04/leg-mij-nou-eens-uit IND. (2022, February 2). Doorlooptijden asiel: Hoe lang duurt mijn asielprocedure? Retrieved March 1,
2022 from https://ind.nl/Paginas/Doorlooptijden-asielprocedure.aspx
INLIA Foundation. (n.d.). Wat doen we. INLIA Foundation. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.inlia.nl/nl/wat-doen-we
Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid. (2022). Tijd voor kwaliteit. Een onderzoek naar de Algemene Asielprocedure.
Jacobs, M., & Maryns, K. (2021). Managing narratives, managing identities: Language and credibility in legal consultations with asylum seekers. Language in Society, 1–28.
Jacquemet, M. (2015). Asylum and superdiversity: The search for denotational accuracy during asylum hearings. Language and Communication, 44, 72–81.
Jansen, S. (2018). Trots of Schaamte? De beoordeling van LHBTI asielaanvragen in Nederland na de arresten XYZ en ABC. COC Nederland/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Jansen, S., & Spijkerboer, T. (2011). Fleeing Homophobia. Asylum Claims Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Europe. COC Nederland/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Jordan, S. R. (2009). Un/Convention(al) Refugees: Contextualizing the Accounts of Refugees Facing Homophobic or Transphobic Persecution. Refuge, 26(2), 165–182.
Jubany-Baucells, O. (2002). The state of welfare for asylum seekers and refugees in Spain. Critical Social Policy Ltd, 22(3), 415–435.
Kagan, M. (2015). Believable Victims. Asylum Credibility and the Struggle for Objectivity. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 16, 123–131.
Kälin, W. (1986). Troubled Communication: Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings in the Asylum-Hearing.
International Migration Review, 20(2), 230–241.
Kalir, B. (2019). Departheid: The draconian governance of illegalized migrants in western states. Conflict and Society, 5(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.3167/ARCS.2019.050102
Kromhout, M. H. C., Wubs, H., & Beenakkers, E. M. T. (2008). Illegaal verblijf in Nederland. WODC Report.
Kuster, B., & Tsianos, V. S. (2016). How to liquefy a body on the move: Eurodac and the making of the European digital border. In EU Borders and Shifting Internal Security: Technology, Externalization and Accountability (pp. 45–63). New York: Springer International Publishing.
Lamkaddem, M., Stronks, K., Devillé, W. D., Olff, M., Gerritsen, A. A. M., & Essink-Bot, M. L. (2014). Course of post-traumatic stress disorder and health care utilisation among resettled refugees in the Netherlands. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-90/TABLES/3 Lassche, K. (2019, December 12). De LVV-pilot: gezamenlijk zoeken naar oplossingen. IND:
VreemdelingenVisie. Retrieved May 26, 2021 from:
https://www.vreemdelingenvisie.nl/vreemdelingenvisie/2019/12/lvv
Lau, P. Y. F. (2019). Empowerment in the Asylum-seeker Regime? The Roles of Policies, the Non-profit Sector and Refugee Community Organizations in Hong Kong. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 305–
327. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez090
Leerkes, A. (2016). Back to the poorhouse? Social protection and social control of unauthorised immigrants in the shadow of the welfare state. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(2), 140–154.
Lewis, R. (2013). Deportable Subjects: Lesbians and Political Asylum. Feminist Formations, 25(2), 174–
194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2013.0027
Lewis, R. (2014). “‘Gay? Prove it’”: The politics of queer anti-deportation activism. Sexualities, 17(8), 958–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460714552253
LGBT Asylum Support. (n.d.). About us – LGBT Asylum Support. Retrieved May 11, 2022, from https://lgbtasylumsupport.nl/en/about-us-3/
LGBT Asylum Support. (2018). Krassen Op Je Ziel: #NietGayGenoeg, de Werkinstructie en de Beoordeling van LHBTI-Asielzoekers in LHBTI-zaken.
Li, S. S. Y., Liddell, B. J., & Nickerson, A. (2016). The Relationship Between Post-Migration Stress and Psychological Disorders in Refugees and Asylum Seekers . Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(82), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0723-0
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Linde, C. (1993). Life Stories: the Creation of Coherence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luibhéid, E. (2002). Entry Denied: Controlling Sexuality at the Border. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Luibhéid, E. (2008). Queer/Migration an unruly Body of Scholarship. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 14(2–3), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-2007-029
Maassen, H. (2011, December 2). Forensisch onderzoek bij asielzoekers moet beter. ‘Wij kunnen veel meer artsen gebruiken.’ Medisch Contact, 2955–2957.
McGuirk, S. (2018). (In)credible Subjects: NGOs, Attorneys, and Permissible LGBT Asylum Seeker Identities. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 41, 4–18.
McKinnon, S. L. (2009). Citizenship and the performance of credibility: Audiencing gender-based asylum seekers in U.S. immigration courts. In Text and Performance Quarterly 29(3), 205–221.
Mendos, L. R., Botha, K., Carrano Lelis, R., López De La Peña, E., & Tan, D. (2020). State-Sponsored Homophobia 2020: Global Legislation Overview Update.
Miller, A. M. (2005). Gay Enough: Some Tensions in Seeking the Grant of Asylum and Protecting Global Sexual Diversity . In B. Epps, K. Valens, & B. Johnson González (Eds.), Passing Lines Sexuality and Immigration. David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.
Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid. (2021). Staat van Migratie 2021.
Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. (2013, December 24). Besluit aanpassing vergoeding tweede of volgende asielaanvragen vreemdelingen. Staatsblad van Het Koninkrijk Der Nederlanden. Retrieved on 15 April, 2022 from: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2013-585.html
Ministry of Justice and Security. (2019). Asylum Trends: Monthly Report on Asylum Applications in The Netherlands. December 2019.
Ministry of Justice and Security. (2021). Asylum Trends: Monthly Report on Asylum Applications in The Netherlands. December 2021.
Murray, D. A. B. (2014). Real Queer: “Authentic” LGBT Refugee Claimants and Homonationalism in the Canadian Refugee System. Anthropologica, 56(1), 21–32.
Nurani, L. M. (2008). Critical Review of Ethnographic Approach. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 14(7), 441–447.
Paskey, S. (2016). Telling Refugee Stories: Trauma, Credibility and the Adversarial Adjudication of Claims for Asylum. Santa Clara Law Review, 56(3), 457–530.
Perego, A. (2017). (Des)Haciendo Fronteras. Experiences of Latin American LGBTI* asylum seekers in Spain during the process of credibility assessment. Master Thesis, Utrecht University.
Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist Assemblages. Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Raj, S. (2017). A/Effective Adjudications: Queer Refugees and the Law. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 38(4), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2017.1341394
Ramezankhah, F. (2017). The Tale of Two Men: Testimonial Styles in the Presentation of Asylum Claims.
International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(1), 110–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eex014 Rechtbank Den Haag. (2021a, February 11). ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:2479. Rechtspraak.nl.
Rechtbank Den Haag. (2021b, May 10). ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5162. Rechtspraak.nl.
Rechtbank Den Haag. (2021c, September 21). ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:11709. Rechtspraak.nl.
Rijksoverheid. (n.d.-a). Hoe verloopt het aanvragen van asiel? Rijksoverheid | Asielbeleid. Retrieved June 25, 2021, from
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/asielbeleid/vraag-en-antwoord/procedure-asielzoeker
Rijksoverheid. (n.d.-b). Terugkeerbeleid | Terugkeer vreemdelingen. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/terugkeer-vreemdelingen/terugkeerbeleid
Rijksoverheid. (n.d.-c). Wat gebeurt er met afgewezen asielzoekers? . Rijksoverheid. Retrieved June 26, 2021, from
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/asielbeleid/vraag-en-antwoord/afgewezen-asielzoekers
Rijksoverheid. (n.d.-d). What does the Dublin Regulation mean for asylum seekers in the Netherlands?
Retrieved June 8, 2021, from https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy/question-and-answer/what-does-the-dublin-regulation-mean-for-asylum-seekers-in-the-netherlands
Rogers, H., Fox, S., & Herlihy, J. (2014). The importance of looking credible: the impact of the behavioural sequelae of post-traumatic stress disorder on the credibility of asylum seekers. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 21(2), 139–155.
RTL Nieuws. (2022, May 3). IND heeft te weinig mensen: asielaanvragen niet altijd zorgvuldig
afgehandeld. RTL Nieuws. https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/5305757/chaos-bij-ind-er-bestaat-grote-willekeur-bij-de-toelating-van
Schroeder, J. L. (2017). The Vulnerability of Asylum Adjudications to Subconscious Cultural Biases:
Demanding American Narrative Norms. Boston University Law Review, 97(1), 315–ii.
Schultze, U. (2017). What kind of world do we want to help make with our theories? Information and Organization, 27(1), 60–66.
Schweitzer, R. (2017). The Micro-Management of Migrant Irregularity and its Control. A qualitative study of the intersection of public service provision with immigration enforcement in London and Barcelona.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex
Selim, H., Korkman, J., Pirjatanniemi, E., & Antfolk, J. (2022). Asylum claims based on sexual orientation: a review of psycho-legal issues in credibility assessments. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2044038/FORMAT/EPUB
Shuman, A., & Bohmer, C. (2004). Representing Trauma: Political Asylum Narrative. Journal of American Folklore, 117(466), 394–414. https://doi.org/10.1353/JAF.2004.0100
Silverman, D. (2020). Introducing Qualitative Research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (pp.
3–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith-Khan, L. (2017a). Negotiating narratives, accessing asylum: Evaluating language policy as multi-level practice, beliefs and management. Multilingua, 36(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0072
Smith-Khan, L. (2017b). Telling stories: Credibility and the representation of social actors in Australian asylum appeals. Discourse and Society, 28(5), 512–534.
Smith-Khan, L. (2019). Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: a critical discourse analysis. Griffith Law Review, 28(4), 406–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2019.1748804 Smith-Khan, L. (2020). Migration practitioners’ roles in communicating credible refugee claims.
Alternative Law Journal, 45(2), 119–124.
Stichting LOS. (n.d.-a). Lobby. Stichting Landelijk Ongedocumenteerden Standpunt. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.stichtinglos.nl/content/lobby
Stichting LOS. (n.d.-b). Organisaties | Stichting LOS. Stichting LOS. Retrieved June 8, 2021, from https://stichtinglos.nl/content/organisaties
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage.
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research Management, 5(2), 18–27.
Tedeschi, M. (2021). On the ethical dimension of irregular migrants’ lives: Affect, becoming and information. Dialogues in Human Geography, 11(1), 44–63.
Thomas, R. (2006). Assessing the Credibility of Asylum Claims: EU and UK Approaches Examined.
European Journal of Migration and Law, 8(1), 79–97.
Ticktin, M. I. (2011). Casualties of care: Immigration and the politics of humanitarianism in France. In Casualties of Care: Immigration and the Politics of Humanitarianism in France. Berkeley: University of California Press.
UNHCR. (2005). UNHCR Global Report - Glossary.
UNHCR. (2008, November 21). UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. UNHCR. https://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd5660.html
UNHCR. (2012, October 23). Guidelines on International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951
Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Refworld.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/50348afc2.html
van der Heijden, P. G. M., Cruyff, M. J. L. F., Engbersen, G. B. M., & van Gils, G. H. C. (2020). Schattingen onrechtmatig in Nederland verblijvende vreemdelingen. WODC Report.
van Meeteren, M., & Wiering, E. (2019). Labour trafficking in Chinese restaurants in the Netherlands and the role of Dutch immigration policies. A qualitative analysis of investigative case files. Crime, Law and Social Change, 72(1), 107–124.
van Schaik, A., van den Burg, R., Gerhring, A., Goezinnen, M., van Tilborg, J. & Ederveen, R. (2021, December 16). Brief aan Tweede Kamerleden - Reactie op coalitieakkoord vanuit organisaties die werken met ongedocumenteerden in de Landelijke Vreemdelingen Voorziening (LVV).
https://www.stichtinglos.nl/sites/default/files/los/Brief%20aan%20Tweede%20Kamerleden%2 C%2016-12.Pdf
VluchtelingenWerk. (n.d.). Asielprocedure. VluchtelingenWerk Nederland - For Refugees. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://forrefugees.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/nl/asielprocedure
Vogl, A. (2013). Telling stories from start to finish: Exploring the demand for narrative in refugee testimony. Griffith Law Review, 22(1), 63–86.
Vollmer, B. A. (2017). The Continuing Shame of Europe: Discourses on migration policy in Germany and the UK. Migration Studies, 5(1), 49–64.
Yeo, R., & Dopson, S. (2018). Getting lost to be found: the insider–outsider paradoxes in relational ethnography. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-06-2017-1533/FULL/PDF
Appendices
Appendix A: Operationalization of key concepts
Concept Dimensions Indicators Variables
Credibility Definition: how likely it is that an applicant’s story is ‘true,’ as judged by the decision-maker.
Inherent properties Definition: whether a story is ‘capable of being believed’
The decision-makers look at inherent qualities of an applicant’s story to assess whether it is ‘credible’
1. What indicators for narrative credibility are used by decision-makers?
2. What expectations do decision-makers have of
‘credible’ stories?
Evaluative properties
Definition: the establishment by other actors whether a story is plausible and most likely ‘true’
The decision-maker assesses the person’s story as reasonable or plausible
1. How is the final decision made whether someone is considered
‘credible?’
Normative LGBTI(Q+) subjectivities Definition: the gendered,
racialized, classed etc.
understandings of 'real' LGBTI(Q+) sexual
orientations, as held by decision-makers
1. Stereotypical assumptions of how all LGBTI(Q+) people
‘must’ act 2. Stereotypical assumptions about the emotional process all LGBTI(Q+) ‘should’
have gone through 3. These assumptions are dominant to the extent that when people do not fit into them they are not recognized as ‘really’
LGBTI(Q+)
1. People that fit the norms are understood as
‘really’ LGBTI(Q+)
2. People whose identities or experiences fall outside the norms struggle to be understood as ‘really’
LGBTI(Q+)
1. What behaviors do decision-makers assume all LGBTI(Q+) people display?
2. What emotions do decision-makers assume all LGBTI(Q+) people experience?
3. How are applicants without these
stereotypical behaviors or emotions viewed by decision-makers?
4. How do NGO workers try to present LGBTI(Q+) applicants’ behaviors and emotions for them to be seen as ‘credible?’
Narrative Definition: the way applicants (try to) convey their ‘life as lived’
experiences in a
‘life as told’
manner, to be recognized as a refugee in the context of the asylum hearing
Meaningful in a specific context and for a specific audience
1. Constructed as meaningful within a specific context 2. In a specific format:
‘logically flowing from A to B’
1. What are cultural expectations placed on how experiences should be told?
2. What are
legal-institutional expectations placed on how
experiences should be told?
3. How are clients’
experiences selected, ordered and given meaning within the preparation process?
Narrative performance Definition: the presentation of the applicant’s self and narrative during the asylum hearing.
The telling of the asylum narrative during the asylum hearing
1. Telling the asylum narrative in the necessary format
2. Answering the
interviewer’s questions in the right format
3. Displaying ‘credible’
non-verbal behaviors during the telling of the asylum narrative 4. Displaying the
expected, story-congruent emotions.
1. How is the applicant expected to tell their narrative during the asylum hearing?
2. What emotions are applicants expected to convey during the asylum hearing?
3. In what format are applicants expected to answer the decision-maker?
Mediator role Definition: a third person attempts to improve the communication between the applicant and the decision-maker to bridge differences in understanding
A third person
‘translates’ the
applicant’s story to be understandable in the legal-institutional context
1. A third person -pre-empts the decision-maker’s demands in the asylum process
2. The third person frames the applicant’s story in a way that is understandable to the decision-maker 3. The third person integrates elements that the decision-maker looks for in the asylum process into the applicant’s story
1. What elements does the decision-maker look for to judge an applicant’s story of origin as credible?
2. How does the NGO worker use their knowledge about the decision-maker’s
demands for the story of origin?
3. Does the NGO worker try to fit the applicant’s story within the decision-maker’s expectations?
4. If yes: How does the NGO worker make sure that the applicant’s story has all the elements necessary to be
considered ‘credible’ in the asylum hearing?
A third person makes laws and procedures understandable for the asylum seeker
1. A third person explains the laws and procedures to the applicant
2. That person ensures that the applicant understands these laws and procedures
1. How does the NGO worker explain legal procedures and laws to applicants?
2. How does the NGO worker instruct the client on the IND’s demands?
‘Translating’ the applicant’s story to be understandable in the
‘Western’ cultural context
1. A third person judges the understandability of story from a ‘Western’
perspective
2. When judged less understandable: they ask the applicant to provide details to enhance understandability 3. A third person (attempts to) integrate these additional details into the case and fit narrative into ‘Western’
format
1. How does the NGO worker anticipate what the decision-maker looks for?
2. How does the NGO worker determine whether the decision-maker will understand the client’s story?
3. What does the NGO worker do when they think an applicant needs to provide more detail or a different format for their story to be fully understood?
4. How do (re)shape applicants’ stories to fit the IND’s demands?
Narrative co-creation Definition:
multiple actors (re)shape the applicant’s narrative to fit within the expectations of the decision-maker of a
‘credible’
narrative.
A third person helps the applicant reshape their narrative from
as-lived’ to ‘life-as-told’ format
1. Hearing the applicant’s
‘life-as-lived’ experiences 2. Assessing relevant elements
3. Using knowledge about decision-makers’
credibility demands 4. Supporting applicant in presenting and framing experiences as having meaning and meaningful order in asylum context according to credibility demands and fitting within Refugee Convention.
1. How does the NGO worker elicit the ‘life-as-lived’ of the applicant?
2. How does the NGO worker attempt to (re)shape the person’s story of origin to fit within the demands of the decision-maker when preparing the case?
3. How does the NGO worker encourage
Appendix B: Interview guide for NGO employees
Translated from the original Dutch:
Before starting the interview: explain our research, how we will use the data, anonymization, verbal consent, how we will present our findings.
1. Introduction
• What is your function? How long have you been working here?
• According to you, what are the most important aspects of your work?
• Why did you decide to work for this organization? According to you, what kind of people work for this organization?
• Can you describe the target group of your organization? What kind of people do you support?
• How are the clients your organizations supports selected?
• How is the organization structured?
o Are there different teams? How many people are in your team? Are there big differences between how different teams work? Is there a lot of collaboration?
2. LGBTI preparation process
• Which teams are involved in preparing repeated asylum claims for LGBTI clients?
• What do you do from your organization to prepare someone for an LGBTI asylum claim?
What steps do you take? How long does the preparation take in total?
• What do you think the IND sees as a credible story? What kind of expectations does the IND have of how people should tell their story?
o How do you try to make clients aware of these expectations?
• You get a lot of clients that were rejected because the IND does not see them as credible. If you read those files, do you see a common thread or something that comes back often why people are not believed?
• What kind of influence does the preparation process have in the end on someone’s story?
o Do you think you’re also influencing the content of someone’s story?
• How did this way of preparing claims start?
o How has it changed since?
• Are you in contact with other NGOs about how they prepare people?
• Is there something you think your organization does very well and you think other organizations could learn from?
3. NGOs & LHBTI asylum claims
• How do you see the role of your organization in general in the asylum process for LGBTI applicants?
• Do you think people can get a repeated asylum claim without help from NGOs?
o If not – why not?
• Is there something you would like to change about how you support people in this process?
4. Reflection on LGBTI asylum procedure