Refugee judge: You're not gay, you weren't banging guys at age 14

[matt_mcl]

@Malthus

I’ll not agree that the arbiter would have to accept an uncontested sworn statement as proof of a claim withour recourse to noting any inconsistencies within it, though. That’s going too far.

Who said that? If his statement were inconsistent, that would count against its veracity; for example, if he said he left Nicaragua at 12 and later referred to living with his parents at age 14, or something.

But the problem is that because of heterosexism and stereotypes, she thought she found an inconsistency where none existed.

[Bricker]

@matt_mcl

Yes, if there were no contrary evidence, the judge would have no reason to disregard the sworn statement, and ought to find that the applicant was gay. (Of course, that the applicant is gay may or may not be sufficient reason for a refugee claim. )

In this case, this judge wrongly used failure to have sex with guys, under the conditions stated, as contrary evidence.

You make two arguments. The first is not sound and the second is.

I agree with you that in this case, it appears that the judge wrongly relied upon the evidence that the applicant did not seek out same-sex partners or relationships without giving any weight or consideration to the circumstances in which he was living that made it impossible for him to do so.

However, that cannot generalize to the conclusion you urge upon us in your first paragraph. The judge is entitled to weigh not only the content of the statement but the credibility of the person giving it. It’s obviously self-serving for this applicant to claim he’s gay. The judge need not accept such testimony at face value; if his demeanor was untrustworthy, she should be perfectly free to take that into account.

[Malthus]

@matt_mcl

Who said that? If his statement were inconsistent, that would count against its veracity; for example, if he said he left Nicaragua at 12 and later referred to living with his parents at age 14, or something.

But the problem is that because of heterosexism and stereotypes, she thought she found an inconsistency where none existed.

If I’m not mistaken, you did:

Yes, if there were no contrary evidence, the judge would have no reason to disregard the sworn statement, and ought to find that the applicant was gay.

To the extent this statement means ‘if an uncontested sworn statement exists, it must be accepted for the proof of its contents’, I am disagreeing with it; I am pointing out a case where it need not be so accepted - where, for example, it is inconsistent.

Again, I am not disagreeing that this arbiter was wrong (subject to the usual caveat).

[matt_mcl]

@Bricker

The judge need not accept such testimony at face value; if his demeanor was untrustworthy, she should be perfectly free to take that into account.

Ah, yes, then we get into the problems that cowgirl mentioned regarding the qualifications and background of refugee arbiters.

That’s also something that’s mentioned in the news stories: Alvaro has a sixth-grade education and a stammer, both of which no doubt counted against him when he was testifying.

That’s also one of the reasons we used to have two-person panels and one of the reasons we’re supposed to have an appeals board that can hear appeals on the merits: so that you will not be sent to your death because you’re nervous or because the judge is having a bad day.

[matt_mcl]

@Malthus

To the extent this statement means ‘if an uncontested sworn statement exists, it must be accepted for the proof of its contents’, I am disagreeing with it; I am pointing out a case where it need not be so accepted - where, for example, it is inconsistent.

Sorry, I assumed you were including “statement is inconsistent” within the notion of contrary evidence.