Comments on: Telling stories? Credibility in asylum interviews

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:50:54 +0000

In reply to Shiyi.ke.

Thanks for your comment – I hope you learned something new from reading the post 🙂

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:50:00 +0000

In reply to Katherine Douglas. Thanks, Katherine. It most certainly is an ongoing task - both here in Australia and around the world!

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:49:01 +0000

In reply to Hana. Thanks Hana! You touched on an interesting point about the digital divide: digital literacy is now an additional issue in asylum applications, as what were previously paper-based applications have now been shifted to an online application portal. While this would have undoubtedly been done to improve the process, it can also create new difficulties. Lawyers with whom I've spoken more recently have identified this as an additional challenge for people who, along with potentially having limited English language proficiency, may also have limited experience with or access to this type of technology.

By: Shiyi.ke

Shiyi.ke — Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:19:37 +0000

I don’t quite understand the content of this article, due to I have never been exposed to this information before. the importance of legal aid and translation in assessing the authenticity of refugees should be paid more attention.

As previously indicated, there is scant mention of additional participants in asylum petitions and appeals, such as attorneys and interpreters, on the application paperwork. This has the impact of downplaying the role that these actors play in shaping the refugee story and the numerous ways that they may affect the applicant’s credibility during the application process.

By: Hana

Hana — Mon, 31 Oct 2022 12:22:35 +0000

When people seek asylum or are forced to go to other countries, issues of cross-cultural communication, interpretation, and inequality always seem to be involved. In particular, in this situation, which interpreter interprets in which language may strengthen or weaken the asylum seeker’s ability. In particular, I saw a reference while doing my assignment, and migrants, especially refugees, are said to face linguistic barriers as the digital divide grows in this global era. It is said that this is especially noticeable in situations where people are poor and do not receive an environment to have the Internet or have proper interpretation services properly. In fact, as clearly shown in this article, respect and consideration for those who support asylum or refugees seem to be needed at the national level. As emphasized in the article, it seems necessary to investigate and support the reliability evaluation process and the language that connects it. And from the point of view of interpreters, it suggests that it is necessary to study and try more for the logical defense of the powerless.

By: Katherine Douglas

Katherine Douglas — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:37:00 +0000

The decision-making process in this article certainly seems unfair to me! The decision-makers (“Members” and the “Tribunal”) always being painted as neutral, calm, rational, and the applicants as subjective stands out in this article. Leaving out interpreters and legal advisors from the decision-making process does not seem to me to be telling the entire story either. These individuals are *vital* parts of an applicant’s application to stay in the country – especially if they do not know the language or law of the country they are applying to, especially if they and/or others’ lives are under threat (if they are made to go home). Not allowing applicants to be subjective (even for a small amount) renders their overall application less strong.
Mmm…some things certainly need to be changed in this process, but changing this system would certainly be a complex, gradual task! I enjoyed this article, though, for an “inside-look”.