Asyl; Glaubwürdigkeit; vraisemblance; credibility; evidence
Affolter Laura / Poertner Ephraim / Miaz Jonathan (2019), Taking the „Just“ Decision. Caseworkers and their Communities of Interpretation in the Swiss Asylum Office., in Gill Nick / Good Anthony (ed.), Palgrave, Cham, 263-283.
AffolterLaura (2018), Der grösste Teil von [unserem] Job ist Unglaubhaftigkeit, in Terra Cognita
, 32, 92-94.
AffolterLaura (2018), Prise de décision en matière d'asile. Le régime de la suspicion., in Vivre Ensemble
, 169, xx.
Fuchs Johanna (2017), Die Entstehung rechtlicher Fallgeschichten in einem Übersetzungsprozess: Die Rechtsvertretung asylsuchenden Personen in einem schweizerischen Hilfswerk, in Lahusen Christian / Schneider Stephanie (ed.), TRANSCRIPT VERLAG, Die Entstehung rechtlicher Fallgeschichten in einem Übersetzungsprozess: Die Rechtsvertretung asylsu, 195-222.
Del Biaggio Cristina, Rey Raphaël (2017), Contraints de vivre sous terre à Genève. Les exilés et la société civile face à l’accueil indigne, in Urbanités
, (8), 1-16.
Affolter Laura (2017), Asyl-Verwaltung kraft Wissen. Die Herstellung von Entscheidungswissen in einer Schweizer Asylbehörde., in Lahusen Christian / Schneider Stephanie (ed.), transcript, Bielefeld, 145-171.
Affolter Laura, Keeping Numbers Low in the Name of Fairness. Ethos and Ethics in a Swiss Asylum Administration., in Eckert Julia (ed.), transcript, Bielefeld.
Eckert Julia (ed.), The Bureaucratic Production of Difference
, transcript, Bielefeld.
EckertJulia, The Office. Ethos and Ethics in Migration Bureaucracies., in Eckert Julia (ed.), transcript, Bielefeld.
"Die Vorbringen des Gesuchstellers halten den Anforderungen an die Glaubwürdigkeit gemäss Art. 7 AslyG nicht stand, so dass ihre Asylrelevanz nicht geprüft werden muss. Demzufolge erfüllt der Gesuchsteller die Flüchtlingseigenschaft nicht, so dass das Asylgesuch abzulehnen ist“ (Negative asylum decision; English translation: The plea of the applicant does not meet the credibility requirements according to article 7 of the Swiss Asylum Act. Its relevance for asylum must therefore not be considered. Consequently, the applicant does not qualify as a refugee and his or her application must be rejected). This decision is a common one in Swiss asylum procedures, since approximately 80% of all negative first-instance decisions are based on the lack of credibility (oral statement by a legal practitioner of the Swiss Refugee Council). In deciding whether asylum seekers are granted asylum or not, immigration officers and judges must not only decide whether an asylum seeker fits the refugee definition but also assess the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statements. In this research project, credibility determination is our main focus. We look at it from a double perspective: On the one hand, we are interested in the evaluation of the credibility of asylum stories and on the other hand, in that of the different institutions involved in the asylum procedures. Thus, we pose the following research questions: (1) What criteria is used by the different actors in the asylum proceedings to determine the credibility of asylum stories?, (2) How is evidence constructed during the asylum procedures and how is it used to construct the credibility of asylum cases?, (3) How do the actors of our study mutually judge their group’s or institution's credibility and how do they try to enhance their own (or their institution's) credibility? In order to answer these questions, we look at the four main actors involved in the asylum procedures (asylum seekers, legal advisors, officers working for the Federal Office of Migration and judges as well as clerks in the Federal Administrative Tribunal) and the interactions between them through a multi-sited, ethnographic approach. Thus, the research questions are analysed in three different ethnographic “fields”: Subproject A is concerned with the state authorities, namely Federal Office of Migration and the Federal Administrative Tribunal, Subproject B with legal advisors and Subproject C with asylum seekers at different stages of the asylum procedure. The researchers will conduct interviews with all the actors mentioned above, analyse written first- and second-instance decisions, asylum appeals and the written records of asylum hearings and carry out participant observation in important interactional settings such as the asylum hearing and meetings between legal advisors and asylum seekers. Additionally, 10 asylum seekers will be “followed” in their “bureaucratic paths”. Our approach is new to the debates on credibility assessment in asylum procedures in that it focuses on asylum seekers as well as asylum “makers” in the construction of credibility. Thus, we consider all the actors in our study as participants with social agency, who contribute (even though unequally) to the generation and transformation of credibility criteria. Through this, we bring together state- and non-state actors, as well as bureaucrats and non-bureaucrats in the production of state categories regarding credibility assessment.