Testimonial Inconsistencies, Adverse Credibility Determinations, and Asylum Adjudication in the United States

Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(2), 202–213. Vol. 3 Iss. 2 (2017) p. 202 - 213

Posted: 9 Jun 2020 Last revised: 1 Jul 2020

See all articles by Sarah Filone

Sarah Filone

affiliation not provided to SSRN

David DeMatteo

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law

Date Written: June 1, 2017

Abstract

Political asylum is a judicial process by which an individual facing persecution in his or her home country may be granted residence and protection within a foreign country. In the United States, immigration judges render credibility determinations that are often considered 1 of the most influential components of an asylum claim. Even small testimonial inconsistencies can be cited as the basis for an adverse credibility determination and subsequent asylum claim denial; however, to date no research has compared the levels or types of discrepancies in veracious accounts to those in fabricated claims. The present study aimed to add to the literature by determining what, if any, differences in testimonial inconsistencies existed between genuine and exaggerated asylum claims. Twenty-eight individuals who have been legally granted asylum in the United States were randomized to either a genuine or simulated exaggerated (i.e., instructed to exaggerate) claim condition and interviewed at 2 time points. The content of the interviews was coded for discrepancies, and discrepancy levels were compared between groups. In this study, a finding of statistical significance would have supported the current immigration court policy, whereas proving the null would suggest important policy implications for asylum adjudication. No significant differences between groups were found, and discrepancy levels across groups were unexpectedly high. Results suggest that the current practice of using testimonial inconsistencies as a proxy for the detection of exaggerated or false asylum claims may be misguided.

Note: (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Keywords: Political asylum, adverse credibility determinations, asylum adjudication

Suggested Citation

Filone, Sarah and DeMatteo, David, Testimonial Inconsistencies, Adverse Credibility Determinations, and Asylum Adjudication in the United States (June 1, 2017). Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(2), 202–213. Vol. 3 Iss. 2 (2017) p. 202 - 213 , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3601822

Sarah Filone

affiliation not provided to SSRN

David DeMatteo (Contact Author)

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law ( email )

3320 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
69
PlumX Metrics