Paper short abstract:

not used

Paper long abstract:

The task of determining whether or not a foreign national is in need of asylum is notoriously difficult. Drawing upon empirical research into the procedure and determination of asylum appeals by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, this paper will consider how the tribunal handles and evaluates expert evidence produced by appellants in support of their cases to be at risk on return. Such evidence is normally of two different types: medical evidence concerning either the scarring on an individual’s body or their psychological condition and country evidence concerning the conditions in the country from which refuge is being sought. The paper will consider how the Tribunal, as a legal decision-maker, approaches such evidence and also discuss the criteria against which the Tribunal assesses the weight that can be attributed to it. The paper will also consider the ongoing debate between the Tribunal and the higher courts concerning the role of such evidence. It will be argued that improvements can be made as regards the preparation and presentation of such evidence before the Tribunal. At the same time, the Tribunal itself might wish to consider its handling of such evidence. In particular, some consideration needs to be given as to the process by which such evidence is presented to the Tribunal. In exploring these issues, it will be argued that, to a large degree, the controversy surrounding the treatment of such evidence illustrates the intrinsic difficulty of seeking to determine accurately who is and who is not a refugee.

Paper Download (244 KB)