Paper short abstract:

not used

Paper long abstract:

This article examines and compares the way in which human rights violations related to gender and sexual orientation are dealt with by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) in England. Hence credibility assessment and subjectivity in the process of asylum decision-making are addressed. More specifically, the present paper analyses the reasons-giving in the asylum decision-making process at the appeal level in gender and sexual orientation related claims, uncovering in particular the subjective variables at play. The article concludes on the basis of the literature and the decisions examined that, in most cases, the assessment of the appellants' credibility in gender and sexual orientation related asylum claims is intimately related to the presiding judges' perception of the veracity of the appellants' sexuality, or to the judge's considerations on how the appellants ought to physically and socially behave as a male or female and/or convey their sexuality if returned to their country of origin. In addition, in both situations, and more often than not, international legal instruments and / or principles are of little relevance for a decision-making process that due to the very nature of the claims has to rely heavily on credibility assessments - of one's individuality or of one's collective belonging.

Paper Download (221 KB)