Skip to content

Rape and asylum claims: credibility and the construction of vulnerability

Women alleging rape in asylum claims are often considered not credible due to cultural and gender-based stereotypes. To be heard, and believed, they must position themselves as ‘appropriately’ vulnerable.

Published:
20248170978_578dc6fa46_z_0.jpg
20248170978_578dc6fa46_z_0.jpg

Protestors outside an immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire, UK in August 2015. Darren Johnson/Flickr. Creative Commons.

Refugee advocacy and support organisations have long known that a significant proportion of women seeking asylum in the UK have experienced rape in their countries of origin. While a disclosure of rape is not a determining factor in all applications, it may be relevant to a range of crucial considerations, including the seriousness of the harm suffered and the prospects for safe return ‘home’. Due to a lack of statistics or empirical research, however, there are still gaps in our understanding regarding the ways in which asylum-seeking women’s claims of sexual violence are disclosed, responded to, and evaluated by decision-makers.

We interviewed stakeholders and observed over 40 appeal tribunals between 2009 and 2012 in order to fill these gaps. We examined three main issues: (1) the ways in which rape narratives are, or are not, engaged with by decision-makers; (2) the ways in which the credibility of both women and their claims are assessed; and (3) the ways in which engaging with such narratives can provoke emotional responses in asylum professionals that require careful management. Our main findings under each of these themes are outlined below.