The normative content applicants need to discuss

The IND working instruction for LGBTI asylum cases outlines four main themes that an applicant needs to address during the asylum interview: private life; current and past relationships and contacts; contact with LGBTI people in the Netherlands and knowledge about the Dutch

situation; and discrimination and persecution in the country of origin (IND, 2019). The focus of the

interview is on asylum seekers’ “own experiences and personal perceptions with regard to his sexual orientation, what this has meant to him and his environment, what the situation is for people with that sexual orientation in the foreigner’s country of origin and how his experiences, also according to his asylum testimony, fit within the general image [of available (country)

information]” (ibid., p.5). The IND official takes the personal story of the asylum seeker as a starting point, and asks questions to get more information about the four themes (ibid.). However,

participants stated that in their view, the IND expects people to talk about their relationships, thoughts, and emotions in a way that does not always fit the experiences of the applicant.

5.3.1 Relationships

NGO workers observed that rejected LGBTI applicants struggle to ‘credibly’ convey their past or current love relationships. The NGO workers believed that the IND expects applicants to demonstrate that they have a ‘love relationship’, but that the IND has normative ideas about what relationships ‘normally’ look like, which not everyone adheres to.

Participants first discussed that the IND deems a relationship implausible if applicants do not know enough details about their partner. The following quotes demonstrate this idea:

“[…] there’s very much the expectation that you know […] what the job was of [your partner’s] parents, your partner’s favorite color and where they go on holiday. Actually, everything about your partner. And for many clients this is not the case. This makes that the relationship isn’t considered credible, [because] the IND thinks ‘huh? How can you be together with someone without knowing a lot about them?’ So these are things that a lot of people get rejected for.” (Sophie, social-legal worker, SUM)

“For us it’s normal if you meet someone and start a relationship with them that you ask what kind of family they’re from […] [but] of course that doesn’t have to be the case [for everyone].” (Judith, social-legal worker, SUM)

These quotes demonstrate that the NGO workers believed the IND to impose a normative understanding of how to engage in love relationships. They believed that these norms are based on culturally specific ways of having relationships (“for us it’s normal”), in which love relationships are based on knowing (intimate) details about a partner’s life.

NGO workers further discussed that applicants have to demonstrate that their relationship is a ‘love relationship’. They discussed how applicants need to describe the feelings they have for

their (past) partner in detail. This is highlighted by Christine (social-legal worker, MigrantNetwork):

“[The testimony] really also has to demonstrate feelings, you really have to explain that it’s not just any friendship but that there really were love relationships, also because [applicants] will say ‘yeah she was so sweet and I always got gifts’. And? That doesn’t make it… what else was there? You know? What did you feel for someone, what did she feel for you, did you talk about those emotions?”

This quote indicates that NGO workers believed the IND expects applicants to have ‘feelings for someone’ that are different from feelings of friendship. These feelings should be discussed openly with the partner and with the IND. According to the NGO workers, just having a sexual relationship with someone, or just describing sexual attraction is therefore also not enough to qualify as a ‘love relationship’ for the IND⁸. The following quote demonstrates the latter:

“For example then [the IND] says […] ‘you put so much emphasis on the sexual aspects, maybe you had a sexual relationship with a man or woman but we don’t see a love relationship in this.’ And then you think yeah but here in the Netherlands you’re also not suddenly [straight] because you just have sex with a man? […] If you believe that someone has sex with a man and that person says [they’re] gay then I think okay, well if you believe that then you shouldn’t still go digging for some deeper love relationship.”

(Eva, social-legal worker, MigrantNetwork)

In the cases they see, NGO workers observe that just having same-sex sexual relations does not constitute enough grounds for someone to be considered ‘credibly’ LGBTI. This is in line with other scholars, who have described how the migration authorities’ view on relationships and

(homo)sexuality becomes dominant within the asylum procedure, as they are the judges of whether an applicant’s sexuality is credible (Berg & Millbank, 2009; Raj, 2017). Interestingly, these two quotes also demonstrate the ideas about sexuality and relationships that the NGO workers themselves have: having same-sex sexual relations make someone ‘not straight’ (Eva), and just being sweet and getting gifts is not a love relationship (Christine). NGO workers are also shaped by

8 The IND is not allowed to ask sexually explicit questions to applicants, and participants told me the IND will often cut applicants short if they discuss sexually explicit content. For people that mostly describe or

experience physical or sexual attraction, this poses complications in how well they can describe their attractions. The Dutch authorities seem to be quite unique in this aversion of sex, as the literature describes many countries where sexually explicit questions are common (see e.g. Jansen & Spijkerboer, 2011; Lewis, 2013).

their cultural and professional contexts, which influence how they do the preparation process. I will continue to reflect on the position of NGO workers in my discussion section.

5.3.2 Reflections on emotions and an ‘internal struggle’

The IND’s views on homosexuality further underlie the assessment of how applicants must understand and experience their sexual orientation to be ‘credible.’ Before 2018, the IND assessed the credibility of asylum seekers’ sexual orientation based on how well they described their ‘coming out,’ ‘internal struggle,’ or ‘self-acceptance’ process (IND, 2015b). Critical evaluations of this

assessment, amongst others by Jansen (2018), saw the ‘coming out’ norm as too much based on the experiences of white gay men in the United States. In the revised 2019 working instruction, it is no longer required to describe an ‘internal struggle’ or ‘coming out’ (IND, 2019). However, the IND still expects the applicant to reflect on their sexuality and on how it was to be ‘different’ from the

societal norm (ibid.). The NGO workers signaled two issues: not everyone is able to reflect abstractly on their thoughts and emotions, and not everyone experiences their sexuality in the same way.

Many NGO workers outlined the importance for applicants to be reflexive, talking about their emotions and describing their thought processes in the interview. During my fieldwork, this was discussed by Lucia (social-legal worker, SUM), who stated that an applicant cannot just say they felt ‘good’ or ‘bad’ about an experience, but they have to be more descriptive in their

explanation. She believed applicants need to give ‘step-by-step’ insight into their thought processes and instructed her clients accordingly. NGO workers classified the IND’s expectation for reflection as very abstract, as they believe that applicants need to be able to distance themselves from their emotions and thoughts and use descriptive terms. They stated that some applicants are not able to reflect on their emotions and thoughts in this way. However, they stated that the IND assumes that an inability to reflect on their emotions means that applicants must be lying about their sexuality.

NGO workers further signaled that some applicants simply do not experience their sexuality in the way the IND expects. They described that the IND expects applicants to have a process of self-reflection on what their sexuality means to them in a country where it is not accepted. However, the participants discussed that for the rejected asylum seekers they support, this thought process is not always there, or not in the way the IND wants. This was demonstrated by Anna (social-legal worker, SUM):

“Because someone maybe hasn’t gone through such a process of becoming aware at all. Or maybe hasn’t struggled [with their sexuality]. Because for example quite often there are people who say ‘God wanted me

to be like this. […] And God thinks I’m good the way I am, so that’s what I think as well.’ And they - or at least as far as they tell me - don’t have any conflicting emotions about who they are. And even though sometimes they find it hard that the people around them don’t accept them, they don’t have any problems with their own self. Or with their self-image: they don’t feel less because they have a sexual orientation that isn’t the norm. And of course the IND does implicitly very much expect them to, that [they] struggled with something that is deviant (afwijkend).”

This quote highlights two IND expectations: that the ‘discovery’ of someone’s sexual orientation is a long reflexive process, and that it is a difficult process, in which people feel unhappy about

themselves or their sexual orientation. The NGO workers stated that even though the IND states not to require an ‘internal struggle’ from applicants to be perceived as credible, implicitly this

requirement is still there. The conception of homosexuality as ‘deviant’ from the heterosexual norm creates an expectation that people struggle with accepting their same-sex attractions and, because (homo)sexuality is seen by decision-makers as an integral part of someone’s identity, with

accepting themselves (see also Berg & Millbank, 2009). Applicants that are not able to describe this supposed universal process of struggle are seen as untruthful (see also Jansen, 2018).

5.3.3 An ‘authentic’ story

In the working instruction, the IND states that “[i]t happens regularly that foreigners provide standard answers about them being LGBTI. This while the IND is looking for an authentic story of the concerned foreigner” (IND, 2019, p.2). Having an ‘authentic’, personal story is thus crucial for the credibility of an asylum claim. Isabel (senior social-legal worker, SUM) highlighted what NGO workers believed the IND sees as an ‘authentic’ story:

“It has to be a story that only you can tell, so it has to be very personal. I think that as soon as the IND gets the idea that this is a story that someone else could also tell, you’re gone.”

As this quote demonstrates, telling a highly personal story is essential to convey credibility, as it shows that the story is ‘truly’ the applicant’s. However, participants discussed that due to the IND’s normative image of relationships and sexuality, applicants’ ‘authentic’ stories are not always enough to pass as credible. This was demonstrated by Sophie (social-legal worker, SUM):

”Still the IND expects a certain non-authentic story. So they argue for an authentic story, but what is expected is that you still say ‘I discovered that I am gay and that was really difficult, because I live in a society where that’s not allowed […] and then I was in the Netherlands, there I started understanding myself

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.