DISSERTATION - Annkatrin Meyerson
TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE – IS THAT THE QUESTION? A critical study of how the Swedish migration courts handle their responsibility to judge in asylum cases
Annkatrin Meyerson has, in a thesis defended at the Gothenburg School of Economics on June 16, studied the migration courts' judgments in those asylum cases where the credibility of the asylum seeker's narrative has been questioned. Judging in asylum cases means assessing risks: whether the asylum seeker, upon expulsion to the country of origin, may be exposed to actions such as persecution or torture.
Deporting a person to a country where such a risk exists is prohibited. This is expressed in the international legal principle of non-refoulement.
The study shows that the emphasis in the judgments of the migration courts is placed on assessing the quality of the asylum narrative based on credibility indicators. Indicators of credibility can be, for example, whether the narrative is detailed, coherent, reasonable and does not contain conflicting information. Facts about, for example, the situation in the country of origin and the asylum seeker's personal circumstances are given less space.
This leads to the asylum examination shifting from an assessment of the risks for the asylum seeker in the event of expulsion, to an assessment of the quality of the asylum seeker's narrative. Thus, the judges' responsibility for making a risk assessment where life and freedom are at stake for the asylum seeker falls into the background.
Opponent: Moa Dahlin, docent, lecturer, Uppsala University