Response
Response
What is the argument of the reading? Summarize it in your own words and assess whether you agree with it or not, stating your reasons why.
As I personally see it, it is quite a reasonable statement as we can read or just learn of many immigration court cases when success of persecution process is determined by the issue of claimant credibility or his/her performance within the immigration court room. Moreover, the author managed to prove the above said by bringing the examples of real life cases; thus, for example, he managed to review over 100 gender-related appellate cases where perceived credibility turned out to be the key reason for denying political asylum.
What greatly surprised me about the reading was the fact that the decisions most of the immigration judges make are based on the so-called claimant’s credibility but not on the content of the issue itself or evidences provided, and, thus, are too personal experience based.
The content of the case becomes less important; much depends on how the judge sees the overall situation, how the claimant acts in the courtroom, what court performance he or she can arrange in front of the judge.
I have also learned from the reading that if the claimant fails to provide all the details of persecution even during the first interview, it might result in doubting his credibility further as no immigration judge would be interested to analyze the claimant case thoroughly.
What are the implications for social justice from the reading? (like who cares or who can get benefits from its reading; what does this reading mean for our society or where should we go from here)
Honestly speaking, I see no implications for social justice in the way court decisions are made. I think that ability to speak well or rationally when it comes to persecution should have nothing in common with denying asylum or deciding upon whether this or that particular person has or lacks a potential as a citizen-subject.
The reading is of real importance for our society because we cannot ignore the subjective decision-making in courtrooms. Personal judgement and the matters of life and death should have less in common that they do.
People applying for political asylum should be aware of the current state of things. They should know that all the details, even minor, do matter for the immigration judge, if he considers them to be of any value. Claimant might be considered to be credible enough if there is no reason to think the other way. But if, for example, the claimant fails to file for an asylum within a year of entry, or if the judge thinks that the claimant is providing the wrong data, nothing can save the case.
Expectations of the judge might not be met for great many of reasons. Not all the facts of political persecution are made public, neither are people aware of the possible emotional reactions closely connected with the cultural belonging of the applicants.
In my opinion, it is not always that easy to speak openly about the persecution a person might have experienced. And this definitely results in the claimant wrong perception by the judge. Unfortunately, personal subjectivity, wrong judgements do take place and often result in extradition of those who have applied for political asylum.
How will the reading change your communication practices, if it all?
I think that the reading will definitely change my communication practices. I suppose that I would do my best not to make judgements before I try to understand the opponent’s way of thinking or motivation.
