Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy
Abstract
Asylum law practitioners face few challenges more difficult than clearing the evidentiary hurdles standing between their asylum-seeking clients and the formidable immigration judge controlling their case. The greatest of these hurdles is that of garnering initial credibility in the immigration judge's eyes. Unfortunately, the United States has made this task even more daunting for asylees by adopting the inflexible standards embodied in the REAL ID Act of 2005. By contrast, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) promotes affording asylum applicants the "benefit of the doubt." This paper compares these two models for determining asylum credibility, and proposes ways in which U.S. immigration judges can practice giving the benefit of the doubt under the constraints of the new legislation.
Recommended Citation
Barton, Ana Maria
(2009)
"A Turn for the Worse: Is There Any Hope for a Benefit of the Doubt Standard in Asylum Credibility Assessments Post-Real ID Act,"
Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy: Vol. 19:
Iss.
1, Article 5.
Available at:
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/jtlp/vol19/iss1/5