• No results found

The shape of the narrative

Chapter 5: The IND’s demands for a credible narrative

5.4 The shape of the narrative

and now I accept myself, because it’s allowed here.’ Like that, very crudely said, is what I think they often expect because they think that’s how it goes. But that of course really contradicts their own goal of an authentic story. [Because] that isn’t authentic, it’s different for everyone. Such an acceptance and awareness process doesn’t happen in the kind of linearity that I think the IND does expect.”

As this quote shows, NGO workers see that the IND’s normative expectations on sexuality can prevent the decision-maker from recognizing a ‘real’ LGBTI person whose experiences fall outside this norm. Not only must an applicant’s experiences fit these norms for them to be perceived as

‘really’ LGBTI, but applicants must also convey these experiences in a specific narrative format to be seen as credible.

5.4.2 Consistency

Additionally, the IND assesses whether an applicant’s story has internal contradictions (IND, 2019). They note especially the absence of contradictions and discrepancies as a criterion for credibility (ibid.). The NGO workers I spoke to saw that the assessment of contradictions was an essential element on which the IND tries to ‘catch’ people lying. This is demonstrated by Lucia (social-legal worker, SUM):

“You really have to have all your dates and places clear because if you contradict yourself with those then [the IND] will always get hung up on it and you will never get out of it, even if it’s a super irrelevant little fact.”

This quote illustrates a belief among NGO workers that consistency in facts, such as dates and place names, is often used to assess the credibility of someone’s story. This is in line with Jacquemet (2015), who found that migration authorities often focus on consistency with denotational signs, such as names, to assess an asylum seeker’s credibility. Participants saw that the IND’s focus on consistency in details sets a high bar for asylum seekers because they described how even a contradiction with an ‘irrelevant little fact’ can make the IND consider an applicant’s story as untruthful.

5.4.3 Details

The IND also assesses credibility based on the level of detail someone can provide. They see someone’s ability to discuss an experience in detail as an indicator of whether their story is true (see IND, 2019). These details include facts such as names, places, or dates, but also detailed descriptions of someone’s partner or an applicant’s emotions. NGO workers were critical of this requirement, as they believed the expected level of detail is unattainable for some applicants, especially traumatized applicants (on this subject, see also Paskey, 2016). However, the NGO workers also saw details as a necessary tool to convey an applicant’s story, as they allow the IND official to better imagine the circumstances and experiences an applicant has lived. Furthermore, they believed that discussing details is important because everything that an applicant states in an interview is registered and must be weighed in the assessment. In the case of rejections, details can provide an asylum seeker’s lawyer with grounds to challenge the assessment.

5.4.4 Telling a chronological story

Coherence, consistency, and detailedness are the demands that the IND states they look for to assess credibility. However, NGO workers also saw the importance of applicants telling their stories chronologically. In one asylum interview report encountered during my fieldwork, the IND official asked the applicant:

“You now have the possibility to describe in your own words what the direct reasons are why you left your country of origin. I want to ask you to tell this as much as possible in chronological order and name names, places and dates where you can.”

This fragment and the experiences of NGO workers demonstrate that although in none of the IND working instructions it is mentioned that the applicant should tell their story chronologically, in practice IND officials explicitly ask for it. From my findings, it seems that telling a story

chronologically is not directly a ground for credibility assessment, but rather a tool for conveying the asylum narrative in a way that can be more easily understood by the IND official. This higher level of understanding can in turn increase perceived credibility. This is similar to what

Ramezankhah (2017) found. She states that applicants that chronologically tell their testimonies, with linear progression between events and information, adhere more to a Western style of narration. In the asylum legal-institutional context, such a chronological story is generally considered more credible than a fragmented one (ibid.; Conley et al., 1979; Schroeder, 2017).

5.4.5 Including examples

Another way for applicants to convey their story clearly and allow the IND officials to better understand it is by providing many examples. Even though the IND working instruction does not mention that examples are required, NGO workers see examples as a useful way to provide the details that are necessary to make a story unique. This is demonstrated by Lucia (social-legal worker, SUM), who told me during participant observation that if an applicant makes a statement such as “my family did not accept my sexual orientation”, they need to provide an anecdote such as

“once when I was 15 years old, my grandma told me that all gay people should go to hell.” This demonstrates a belief of NGO workers that examples can make the story more ‘authentic’ as they make a story more personal and detailed, and thus more likely to be considered credible by the IND.

5.4.6 A good story

“What I always say to people: you will have to tell your story like a book, you have to take someone [the IND official] along in your story (‘je moet iemand meenemen in jouw verhaal’)” (Eva, social-legal worker, MigrantNetwork)

Ultimately, as this quote demonstrates, most NGO workers describe the need for applicants to provide a ‘good story’ to be considered credible. They believe that it is necessary to ‘take the IND official along’ in the story, by describing emotions and thoughts, using details and examples. A good, credible story in LGBTI asylum cases is chronological, detailed, unique, and with many anecdotes.

However, it also needs to be logical and free from contradictions. For a story to be perceived as credible, it needs to be rich and understandable for the IND official. This is in line with the

literature, in which the importance of a ‘good story’ for a credible claim has been described (see for example Good, 2011; Jacquemet, 2015; Vogl, 2013; among others). Similarly, Barsky (2000) argues that an asylum seeker should not only present the right content to fit into the framework of the Refugee Convention but that it must be also presented in a narrative form that migration authorities can comprehend. The applicant has to make their identity ‘readable’ through their testimony (Akin, 2017). However, not everyone is able to do this. In the next section, I outline factors that can limit applicants’ ability to make a credible statement.