According to a recent study conducted by the University of Copenhagen, credibility plays a pivotal role in the assessment of an asylum seeker’s eligibility to live in Denmark. However, the evaluation process is so intricate and unclear that an applicant’s rights can be easily disregarded. The study scrutinized the use of data in numerous asylum decisions.
The study highlights the significance of data in determining who is eligible for asylum by the highest decision-making body, the Refugee Appeals Board. The researchers contend that this aspect has not been adequately addressed in Denmark to date.
The research examined the various data practices employed by the board to arrive at decisions. The crucial aspect, as per the study, is whether the authorities regard the asylum seeker as ‘credible’ or not. However, how is this credibility evaluated?
“The Refugee Appeals Board must decide whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin. Our review shows that this assessment takes place via a very complex procedure, where one can estimate using many types of data produced in many different places, that can be interpreted in many different ways. And, it is not unproblematic,” the authors explain.
Looking for inconsistencies
The Refugee Appeals Board’s decision hinges on whether inconsistencies are found in the different data pertaining to an individual applicant, as per the study.
This data may comprise various elements, such as the asylum seeker’s account given to the Immigration Service (initial decision), an application form, self-reported information that the authorities interpret, registry data from the countries the applicant has traversed, facial images, and fingerprints, information from the applicant’s mobile phone and Facebook profile, and notably, country reports concerning the applicant’s country of origin generated by organizations like the Danish Immigration Service or NGOs like the Danish Refugee Council.
“In the decision summaries we analyzed, applicants are deemed untrustworthy and refused asylum if discrepancies are found between different data sources. For example, as in the case above, where the Swedish authorities registered information about an applicant that conflicted with what was registered by the Danish authorities,” the researchers continue.
Unreliable sources
The researchers reveal numerous instances where the Board rejected asylum based on disparities between the data contained in the asylum application and the available country reports on the applicant’s home country, as per the study. Nonetheless, differences can also arise between the information provided by an individual on Facebook and the data presented in a different context.
Over the past few years, there has been a rising trend of generating copious amounts of data on refugees worldwide. This is being carried out at both the government authority and NGO levels.
“The increasing amount of data and use of various data in asylum cases can make decision-making processes opaque for asylum seekers. While more data can be positive, it’s important to keep in mind that data is never objective. We need to be especially critical when using new types of data as a basis for decisions that can have such a major impact on the lives of vulnerable people,” the researchers explain.
This use of data is a significant change in the typical practice of asylum assessments, and the researchers believe it could be highly problematic in terms of ensuring people are given a fair assessment.
“In these decision-making processes, where asylum seekers and authorities have a very unequal power relationship, democratic and legal rights are easily subject to pressure. Regardless of whether the data is recognizable to an asylum seeker or whether the applicant is even aware of data being produced, it can greatly influence the outcome of a case,” they conclude.
