Illusions of objectivity: The two functions of country of origin information in asylum assessment

Abstract

Abstract The article argues that the intertextuality of country of origin information (COI) plays a significant part in constructing asylum decisions and therefore the lives and futures of those affected by forced migration. COI in asylum decisions is based on COI reports, which in turn are based on other COI reports, interviews, or media materials. This makes them intertextual, that is, referring to and transforming other texts. That is, COI reports typically include dozens or even hundreds of pages of information, which are abbreviated in order to be used in a few paragraphs of asylum decisions. This is done through recontextualisation, that is, by selecting certain parts of the text and reformulating them to the new context. The article analyses COI in 67 negative first-instance asylum decisions and in 38 COI reports and similar sources through the concept of intertextuality. It argues that COI has two functions in the asylum decisions, personal and general. Personal COI is used to assess the truthfulness of the asylum applicant’s persecution narrative, whereas general COI is used to evaluate the overall security and human rights situation in the country of origin. The article shows that even though the decisions tend to present COI as objective information, it can easily be biased, irrelevant, and illogical, therefore creating an illusion of objectivity.