explanation for that behavior. The range of behavior that can indicate adverse credibility under section 8 is extensive, including concealing information, delaying the resolution of a claim, failing to produce official documents such as a passport or travel documents, failing to make an asylum claim as soon as practicable, or making a claim subsequent to arrest or an immigration decision. Whilst UKBA guidance states that section 8 is not the point” for the consideration of credibility, it “starting also instructs decision-makers that 8 behaviours must be taken “section into account as potentially damaging” (UKBA, 2012: 17, paragraph 4.3.4). The relevance or centrality of such factors to assessing the veracity of an applicant’s claim has, however, been challenged by a number of commentators and practitioners (see for example IARLJ 2013: 95; Thomas, 2006). After all, as Sweeney (2009: 9) has observed: of the applicant’s travel itinerary or behavior in the UK “Examination may tell decision-makers whether they are a customer’, whether ‘good they are convenient and co-operative, but it will not reveal very much about whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution.” With respect to decisions regarding the credibility of individual material facts, the UKBA Instruction further points to the need for to consider whether these are when deciding whether ‘plausible’ or not to apply the of the doubt’. Plausibility has been taken to ‘benefit mean the likelihood or apparent reasonableness of a claim”. “inherent
explanation for that behavior. The range of behavior that can indicate adverse credibility under section 8 is extensive, including concealing information, delaying the resolution of a claim, failing to produce official documents such as a passport or travel documents, failing to make an asylum claim as soon as practicable, or making a claim subsequent to arrest or an immigration decision. Whilst UKBA guidance states that section 8 is not the “starting point” for the consideration of credibility, it also instructs decision-makers that “section 8 behaviours must be taken into account as potentially damaging” (UKBA, 2012: 17, paragraph 4.3.4). The relevance or centrality of such factors to assessing the veracity of an applicant’s claim has, however, been challenged by a number of commentators and practitioners (see for example IARLJ 2013: 95; Thomas, 2006). After all, as Sweeney (2009: 9) has observed: “Examination of the applicant’s travel itinerary or behavior in the UK may tell decision-makers whether they are a ‘good customer’, whether they are convenient and co-operative, but it will not reveal very much about whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution.” With respect to decisions regarding the credibility of individual material facts, the UKBA Instruction further points to the need for to consider whether these are ‘plausible’ when deciding whether or not to apply the ‘benefit of the doubt’. Plausibility has been taken to mean the “inherent likelihood or apparent reasonableness of a claim”.
Reason%20to%20Disbelieve%20-%20IJLC%20FINAL%20SUBMITTED%2022%20OCTOBER%202013.docx