Individuals claiming persecution on the basis of gender or as sexual minorities have faced many obstacles in the political asylum process including additional burdens of proof of identity and of persecution. Based on our own work with political asylum applicants, on legal reports, and on reports by groups providing assistance to asylum seekers, we review the law and the obstacles and consider the conditions underlying and supporting suspicion of the applicants. We observe how particular narratives are rendered untellable in the interrogation process and how the identities of sexual minorities become either invisible or hypervisible.
BennettAG (1999) The ‘cure’ that harms: Sexual orientation-based asylum and the changing definition of persecution. Golden Gate University Law Review29(2): 279–309.
2.
BinderA (2001) Gender and the ‘membership in a particular social group’ category of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law10(2): 167–184.
3.
BohmerCShumanA (2007a) Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the 21st Century, London: Routledge.
4.
BohmerCShumanA (2007b) Producing epistemologies of ignorance in the political asylum application process. Identities14(5): 603–629.
JohnsonTAM (2011) On silence, sexuality and skeletons: Reconceptualizing narrative in asylum hearings. Social and Legal Studies20(1): 57–78.
13.
KapurR (2005) Erotic Justice: Law and the New Politics of Postcolonialism, London: Glasshouse.
14.
KeenanS (2012) Safe spaces for dykes in danger? Refugee law’s production of vulnerable lesbians. In: FitzGeraldSA (eds) Regulating the International Movement of Women: From Protection to Control, New York: Routledge, pp. 29–47.
15.
LandauJ (2005) Soft immutability and imputed gay identity: Recent developments in transgender and sexual-orientation-based asylum law. Fordham Urban Law Journal32(2): 237–264.
16.
LewisR (2010) The cultural politics of lesbian asylum: Angelina Maccarone’s Unveiled (2005) and the case of the lesbian asylum-seeker. International Feminist Journal of Politics12(3–4): 424–443.
17.
LewisR (2013) Deportable subjects: Lesbians and political asylum. Feminist Formations25(2): 174–194.
18.
LuibhéidE (2008) Queer/migration: An unruly body of scholarship. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies14(2): 169–190.
19.
MacDonald A (2010) Assessment of credibility and its pivotal role in decision-making. In: Sydney Legalwise CPD Seminar: Administrative Law: Improving the Decision-Making Process, available on request from the author.
20.
Macklin A (1999 [1998]) Truth and consequences: Credibility in refugee determination. In: Realities of Refugee Determination on the Eve of a New Millennium. International Association of Refugee Law Judges 3rd conference, October 1998, Ottawa, Canada. Haarlem: IARLJ, pp. 134–140.
21.
MahmoodS (2001) Feminist theory, embodiment and the docile agent: Some reflections on the Egyptian Islamic revival. Cultural Anthropology16(2): 202–236.
22.
MillbankJ (2005) A preoccupation with perversion: The British response to refugee claims on the basis of sexual orientation, 1989–2003. Social and Legal Studies14(1): 115–138.
23.
MillbankJ (2009) ‘The ring of truth’: A case study of credibility assessment in particular social group refugee determination. International Journal of Refugee Law21: 1–33.
24.
MohyuddinF (2001) United States asylum law in the context of sexual orientation and gender identity: Justice for the transgendered. Hastings Women’s Law Journal12: 387–410.
25.
MorrisonJBackersS (2001) The dark-side of globalisation: The criminalisation of refugees. Race Class43(1): 71–81.
26.
MusaloK (2001) Steps forward and steps back: Uneven progress in the law of social group and gender-based claims in the United States. International Journal of Refugee Law13: 51–70.
27.
MusaloK (2002–2003) Revisiting social group and nexus in gender asylum claims: A unifying rationale for evolving jurisprudence. DePaul Law Review52: 777–808.
28.
NeilsenV (2005) Homosexual or female – Applying gender-based asylum jurisprudence to lesbian asylum. Stanford Law & Policy Review16: 417–444.
29.
OxfordCG (2005) Protectors and victims in the gender regime of asylum. National Women’s Studies Journal17(3): 18–38.
30.
Pitcherskaia v. INS. (1997) 118 F 3d 641.
31.
RabinowP (1977) Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco, Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
Refugee Women’s Resource Project Asylum Aid (2003) Women Asylum Seekers in the UK: A Gender Perspective, Some Facts and Figures, London: Refugee Women’s Resource Project.
33.
Re Soto Vega (2004) Soto Vega v. Ashcroft, No. 04-70868 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 25, 2004). Cited in Hanna F (2005) Punishing masculinity in gay asylum claims – In re Soto Vega Case Comment. Yale Law Journal114(4): 913–920.
34.
RosaldoR (1986) From the door of his tent: The fieldworker and the inquisitor. In: CliffordJMarcusJ (eds) Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 77–97.
35.
Sharma U with Berry H (2008) Women Asylum Seekers Together AM I safe Yet: Stories of Women Seeking Asylum in Britain. Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Race Relations Archive.
36.
ShumanA (2005) Other People’s Stories: Entitlement Claims and the Critique of Empathy, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
37.
ShumanABohmerC (2004) Representing trauma: Political asylum narrative. Journal of American Folklore117(466): 394–414.
38.
SpijkerboerT (2000) Gender and Refugee Status, Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
39.
SpivakG (1988) Can the subaltern speak? In: GrossbergNGrossbergCGrossbergL (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271–313.
UNHCR (2010) Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Text of the 1951 Convention. Article 1: Definition of the term refugee. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf (accessed 23 September 2014).
