Credibility in Gender-Based Violence Protection Assessment Contexts

A decision-maker’s assessment of the believability of an asylum seeker applicant is an increasingly dispositive factor in protection claims. Practitioners play a significant role in communicating credibility, approaching credibility in a trauma-informed manner, and identifying grounds of judicial review on the basis of credibility. RAP developed a set of resources for practitioners to manage credibility concerns in refugee status determination, particularly in the context of gender-based violence protection claims. 

The first resource (‘Credibility in Gender-Based Violence Protection Assessment Contexts’) is focussed on first instance applications. It outlines approaches to seeking instructions, case preparation, and submissions which assist in identifying credibility concerns and in mitigating the adverse impact of credibility concerns on the outcome of a case. It also sets out possible indicators and relevant legal principles for five key credibility concerns that may arise: inconsistency, lack of specific information, improbable ongoing threat, implausibility, and a delay in making an application or in disclosing claims.

The second resource (‘Credibility in Judicial Review’) identifies grounds of judicial review which have been recognised in relation to adverse credibility findings, which include failure to afford procedural fairness; illogicality, irrationality and/or legal unreasonableness; reaching a finding without a logical, rational or probative basis; failure to perform the required statutory task of review; failure to take into account material critical to the formation of the requisite state of satisfaction; and failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration. It provides example indicators which may suggest that such grounds apply, in addition to outlining the legal principles and case law relevant to each ground of review.

Together, these resources aim to strengthen the knowledge base available to practitioners to ensure that credibility concerns do not result in adverse outcomes for refugees and asylum seekers at first instance or on review.

These guides were written by the Rights Advocacy Project’s 2020 refugees and asylum seekers team: Catherine Zhou, Simrat Roopra, Monique Failla, Veronica Snip, and Liam Currie.