Contstructing the personal narratives of lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum claimants

Year Published:

Abstract

This article draws upon psychological and sociological literature to explore the issues that arise in eliciting and presenting a refugee narrative when the claim is based upon sexual orientation. Rigid notions of homosexual identity may consciously or subconsciously shape decision-makers’ approaches in this field. First, we identify psycho-social issues of particular significance to lesbian, gay and bisexual claimants which may act as barriers to eliciting their narrative of self-identity, including: a reluctance to reveal group membership as the basis of a claim, the experience of passing or concealment strategies, the impact of shame and depression on memory, common experience of sexual assault, and sexualisation of the identity narrative in the legal process. Secondly, we explore factors which inhibit the reception of such narratives in the legal process. In particular we explore the psychological ‘stage model’ of sexual identity development and examine the pervasive impact this model has had upon decisionmakers’ ‘pre-understanding’ of sexual identity development as a uniform and linear trajectory.

Citation

Relevant Evidence Summaries

The evidence was reviewed and included in the following summaries: 

Image of person with Pride flag

What works to support LGBTQ refugees?

As yet, there are no published outcome evaluations of programs or practices specifically for LGBTQ refugees. Existing best practice recommendations are based on stakeholder consensus. ▪ Three separate stakeholder consensus reports all yield similar recommendations for addressing the unique needs of this population. All recommendations revolve around creating a “safe space” through specific practices. Evidence […]

About this study

AGE: Adults

DIRECTION OF EVIDENCE: No evidence about impact

FULL TEXT AVAILABILITY: Paid

GENDER: All

HOST COUNTRY: Australia

HOST COUNTRY INCOME: High

OUTCOME AREA: Legal Status

POPULATION: Asylees

STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Suggestive

TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2017

More STUDIES