The Role of Trust in <scp>LGBTQ</scp> + Refugee Status Determination ( <scp>RSD</scp> ) System

The refugee status determination (RSD) system struggles to treat LGBTQ+/queer1 asylum seekers fairly. The many humiliations to which they are subject over the course of the determination process are well-documented (O'Leary 2008; Jensen and Spijkerboer 2011; Lewis 2014; Danisi et al. 2021). The dangers they face before they seek status and after they are granted this status are widely recognized (Grungras, Levitan, and Slotek 2009; UNHCR 2021, 2022a; 2022b; Human Rights Watch 2020; Rainbow Railroad 2022; NGLHRC [National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission] and Amnesty International 2023). Many LGBTQ+ claimants are being denied status because their way of expressing their sexuality or gender identity does not conform to the existing stereotypes of being queer (Morgan 2006; Tschalaer 2020; Wolff and Cochrane 2023). During grueling and often humiliating interviews, their stories are discredited by homo- or transphobic interviewers, and their discomfort with being open about their sexuality or gender identity along with their occasional refusal to disclose highly private, intimate details about their behavior, is often judged in ways that are detrimental to their case (Murray 2014; Akin 2017; Dhoest 2019; Dustin and Ferreira 2021; Ferreira 2023). In this article, we look at one specific, underlying feature of the RSD system—that of mistrust—and the ways in which the unique experiences of LGBTQ+ persons and the social attitudes directed at them challenge the appropriate functioning of trust within the system. We bring together several strands of philosophical analysis—specifically insights from queer theory, democratic theory, and political theory of refugees—to demonstrate the difficulties that LGBTQ+ persons face in gaining access to protection, and to shape several recommendations for undermining these difficulties. We start from the assumption that certain relations of trust and institutional mistrust ought to operate at the center of a fair RSD system, one that aims to identify those (and only those) individuals who are eligible for international protection. The appropriate relations of trust and mistrust within the system—and between individual RSD officers and asylum claimants—are, however, distorted in many ways. One major distortion, which is endemic to the system and which applies to all asylum seekers, stems from the structural disadvantages that asylum seekers face vis-à-vis the asylum system in general. That is to say, asylum seekers are always at the mercy of the officers that determine their fates. We will consider the way that these structures shape trust, mistrust, and distrust below, among all asylum seekers, but our main analysis is focused on two additional factors that undermine trust in LGBTQ+ cases specifically: (1) The often unique experiences of queer people that lead to what we call the logic of concealment, that is, the near-universal experience of LGBTQ+ people recognizing that sometimes it may be better, and safer, for them to conceal their being queer than to risk the consequences of not doing so. (2) The ways in which the prevailing social attitudes, including homo- and transphobia, bleed into the RSD processes, thus undermining trust and the appropriate use of discretion within the system. We call this the problem of institutional bleeding. We proceed as follows. In Part 2, we a of the RSD system and the of trust, mistrust, and discretion that are for the system to the it is to In Part we to the case of LGBTQ+ individuals and the logic of into existing system of distrust between the RSD officers and LGBTQ+ In Part we consider the problem of institutional as one of the RSD in of trust in LGBTQ+ In Part we for the of institutional bleeding. is that one or a of that a to in a of who we or or our trust risk to be to individuals in intimate and social and it be directed those in of In trust be and individuals as and one individual is in way than are that these people trust political and is about trust the in but trust who is one of the In people at the distrust individuals who within That trust be (and to individuals the is is to the analysis that follows. trust, sometimes it is on the of on the of the of or on the that to be in the which it a of trust will be or In and in the is on or does or does not they be in people trust on the of all of that is not or because it is of In trust to one is, in them the discretion to with a and that the will use their discretion what the is or is and the discretion to the trust is trust a to for their the that discretion with to to so. the discretion is to the at the to that their as as a the trust in In people be with or that the discretion they are and those or to or of trust to about by the along with the discretion the in what be to the to will of course be by the of what is and by the of the the use of discretion the trust over be from mistrust and of which are sometimes as a or that one does not trust, but one is at in open to or that may be one does not trust and one is to or that be mistrust is trust is the or are distrust is will to be to or at the of trust is to the or not of who the of trust over that the of distrust is always a that are distrust is and attitudes are to political this is to the RSD In individual who is status as a refugee their a RSD by individual or the on The UNHCR that are to individual for which with to that the to determine for individual is to as a the UNHCR the fair and appropriate of the sometimes status determination the of the determination system is a to identify who is, and who is to refugee status and the that this status The UNHCR the of all claimants with as as what in of for with what of or be in RSD interviews, and what of claimants they for their to be are to the of asylum in the of the that asylum seekers face in to the system in and the officers to their case in be are of a system that is with and asylum to those who are in they be by of the that the UNHCR claimants their case for refugee they it in and to who is with the In the to determine a is to refugee In the that is by the in as UNHCR to the and with fair trust is directed at officers in of their status as and the to which they be to it fairly. trust is to the functioning of many trust and in of their of the trust that is to individuals is to of the way in which they to these and and In the trust is on the that the they are a does and that the and that this and are In the case that we are focused on the officers with UNHCR are in that on the that the UNHCR or be to with to who refugee status and who does the of the their trust in UNHCR or will be at on the as a will the attitudes and they ought to be the determination are to be it is that the institutional are that a is than of in general. that it is to asylum seekers being to trust, their that asylum seekers but to that they will be fairly. We this is we those in of and trust, and those who is trust to individuals with the as we individuals and thus in a a or that this discretion will be may be the for the refugee that the that they for gaining refugee status is by the RSD as as they they or that this will be we are as of than trust, and not thus be as of a refugee system that all refugee claimants with The of trust from the individual claimants the RSD officers or the system as a are however, the only relations of that the functioning of the RSD system. the is as a by the many including asylum claimants it the case that at the of RSD is to identify at to international The is that refugee claimants are the with a certain of a of that is not directed at them as but is a institutional mistrust that from the of the status determination system, and which is directed at individual who a mistrust is directed at claimants by or it is to the and to individual is or is not to refugee mistrust is thus of the RSD system. the RSD officers thus a of mistrust to those cases they they are of trust, mistrust, or distrust by those they In the they are the of trust, in on the they or a RSD is as and the determination are as the trust directed at the will on the that the over the course of the they The they are in is from a the is to with but in a and way that the to be open about their to to the that may their case for protection, and to trust the to a fair of their to the between trust and RSD officers in of their granted the discretion to asylum as they within the of the for doing so. In this as in discretion be or the RSD officers the trust of those they are in on they use their discretion that the of discretion is to people and to it is or for discretion is or discretion (1) be within the of the in this case with to RSD (2) the in this case with to the of of be in the that be a that the of that is to individual is is to refugee and discretion be in that are with the and that a which in this case to the UNHCR and the that are to UNHCR and RSD we in these are not always in the RSD processes, and the claimants may thus be in the officers their before we this to the case of LGBTQ+ in to from the of trust and mistrust, may be about their and the of that LGBTQ+ claimants face within the RSD system. all claimants in the RSD system are with a certain of mistrust for the officers to their of claimants may face additional as is Danisi et al. identify a of that the LGBTQ+ asylum processes, thus the RSD for LGBTQ+ LGBTQ+ claimants are with of stories are discredited and their as of are being the claimants which to their stories to the as these stories may not with the stereotypes of being queer the relations between LGBTQ+ claimants and officers their case be as not only of mistrust, but of distrust that often the RSD distrust of and asylum and the LGBTQ+ distrust of the officers their In this we of the of this of by the which are being and the and experiences of LGBTQ+ persons to the existing of distrust in the RSD for LGBTQ+ LGBTQ+ are to one or of these the claimants are not to a of to them being they are not to be queer in the and are not subject to is between these two they are often The may not be to be queer because of of of their being so. may for of or of queer intimate of of or to a of their sometimes because to the the does not queer or does not in The as LGBTQ+ may be because they not disclose their to the RSD is as a of or of by individuals to be in the of to which they are not The of a is LGBTQ+ for the of the is, they are to a of and the is thus eligible for international protection. being as queer or their identity for by in a and often in the is as not subject to as they at to their identity as LGBTQ+ the discretion is, the that LGBTQ+ persons or in their to and to the of LGBTQ+ the the to operate in the of many RSD for LGBTQ+ claimants 2021; Danisi et al. 2021). claimants who to as or who to be open about their sexuality or gender identity the RSD interviews, are to in their to their not being to be subject to or to their not being to be queer in the we in that is and of institutional mistrust in the RSD what we in the case of RSD for LGBTQ+ claimants to this mistrust, into distrust of LGBTQ+ claimants of those who to into queer stereotypes or who are not open about their sexuality or gender Part of this distrust of be in a system that for the of LGBTQ+ and to this struggles to many of the and of by queer people as is the of this to a of the ways in which the RSD system to LGBTQ+ In the we to a of within the existing of LGBTQ+ claimants it to their cases we are to the of LGBTQ+ persons in the refugee (1) the and that LGBTQ+ persons in the refugee and (2) the to these that is, the to conceal identity in the of these LGBTQ+ persons to be among of the of in all of their refugee 2022a; 2022b; and in their of LGBTQ+ persons are with of and their as from their of to the refugee as as the be to that in the of are two of these they to be of the as the that LGBTQ+ persons are that is, and being they often at from the that LGBTQ+ persons to LGBTQ+ persons who the of being LGBTQ+ are often to of being to a at these are from the of people that the in the The being LGBTQ+ by the to their of but often with LGBTQ+ persons their as the of the and of the in it is not that many LGBTQ+ persons to conceal their to the that they are to a of is the that LGBTQ+ persons in within the refugee is a of a experience of LGBTQ+ people that we call the logic of a near-universal experience of queer people that it may be better, and safer, to conceal their being queer than to risk the consequences of not doing being open about their sexuality or gender identity will subject them to and sometimes that they may to One way to this logic of is a queer of the of the and the of or being open about or gender the one identity in the always the risk of being and the of not being to as the being open about sexuality or gender identity of the of being being by the as the case often is, by In the case of who are the of or gender identity of as the and of the of these to with LGBTQ+ persons the refugee system. relations and and identity is thus a for who are we is that often a on the of this logic of and the of or identity is to with in the case of LGBTQ+ asylum the are on insights into these by the not only of or but of one as queer in ways. In to be and to from of and queer people are often to sexuality or gender with a to detrimental on their in from and to of social of or sexuality gender are as to with social in to In the of the of on the one and on the however, in two the one or identity may be one of the only ways for queer claimants to from homo- and the in to a case in the RSD be to be are often to to and their sexuality or gender identity in with the stereotypes of being to is a the one by or their LGBTQ+ claimants of the they face being but may be to be RSD the being open about their or gender and to stereotypes of being may on their asylum but subject them to of and by those of these as we to may be within the RSD processes, and be by the functioning and the of discretion on which these In the we the logic of of LGBTQ+ people to conceal their to one of the factors that into the existing of and distrust within RSD for LGBTQ+ of the that of and and is that be to these and to LGBTQ+ people In this however, we on one challenge that we as to the functioning of the RSD system and from within this system, into the of LGBTQ+ claimants to than be open their or gender identity RSD We this the problem of institutional and it the homo- and attitudes of RSD bleed into the thus for LGBTQ+ to their we the problem of institutional as from the difficulties of and within the RSD system, as we in of the for the of institutional may to of the within the system. we RSD officers as on of and the UNHCR or a refugee to the UNHCR of the UNHCR or they a to in trust in the system that claimants and to RSD officers with that determine and shape they are to with asylum however, for of the that is, officers discretion to what they are and appropriate of in to determine the of a for The of this discretion is to a RSD and it is the of of in to In LGBTQ+ claimants ought to be to their trust to RSD officers in their as RSD the trust that is or ought to be directed at them is in the of they their the of discretion that RSD officers the trust them on this discretion is we in 2, discretion is and only it certain our the of the RSD be within the of the and in with the and of the including in the of all claimants with all including LGBTQ+ claimants with not them to or their or that are in of what we about the RSD for LGBTQ+ claimants is that LGBTQ+ claimants are to that these may about intimate details of for or of or to of their being are of claimants being to humiliating as the of for the of being is not to a of or many RSD for LGBTQ+ claimants to treat queer people with of these may to with the difficulties of a and system that for the of LGBTQ+ individuals to start from the we to on one problem that stems from the functioning of the system, from the of trust and discretion that individual RSD officers are the problem of institutional the social attitudes of the RSD bleed into the system thus to or use of discretion as for by the highly and demonstrate this look at and by RSD for LGBTQ+ claimants are the of are by the the from are of LGBTQ+ RSD in these a of RSD officers and in the process in of are that is, and of that and in many the homo- and that LGBTQ+ individuals to is in the of their cases in a by officers who are to the prevailing and attitudes LGBTQ+ may the of the to their case in a the attitudes of RSD their for by their of to that are not only but which and LGBTQ+ claimants are to distrust their The problem of institutional is of only to cases RSD officers are to the homo- and transphobic attitudes of the as in many of the refugee in the but difficulties for LGBTQ+ claimants in LGBTQ+ with LGBTQ+ RSD officers in these be to the of by of from a they may the detrimental on the of trust within the system. the discretion may be by the and stereotypes of being with to the and experiences of LGBTQ+ people from prevailing homo- and transphobia, and in asylum however, LGBTQ+ claimants are to be of RSD on that they may the attitudes that they are to however, that this of that in the of to trust or be by the experiences of LGBTQ+ claimants and within the the RSD to the with their to that are to the and in a and the discretion of the is and in a the and transphobia, and their of the or their in ways that or the their discretion is and in a way that into and distrust within the system. institutional as one of the for relations within the RSD for LGBTQ+ we this by which to the of bleeding. these at the dangers of or use of discretion by RSD by and their institutional within the system, by their in and LGBTQ+ asylum and by to cases they that officers are them with doing the at the for the LGBTQ+ claimants to trust the officers in their institutional and for thus their often to conceal their in a process to a at them to the that is, disclose the for the of institutional we for and of that the of discretion to RSD officers in their institutional for by the UNHCR and by the individual refugee in that LGBTQ+ 2021; The of however, not only between refugee but within refugee and individual RSD officers that LGBTQ+ asylum et al. 2021). for RSD for LGBTQ+ the the of discretion for RSD officers by within which their discretion be on discretion the of the system and the as as the to which the RSD attitudes, including homo- and transphobia, their and to the of that officers are to about the intimate details of the and the on the and on the including of a and and of may not only the of the persons eligible for international but trust in the system. The that the discretion of RSD officers is by their as institutional the that claimants will the officers and as of the UNHCR or RSD than as and in doing a within which claimants their however, the between trust and discretion that we is in the of discretion to and that discretion is it trust may to to to trust within the RSD system for LGBTQ+ the of discretion is not for discretion only trust it is that is, it is in a way The of LGBTQ+ asylum that it is to or at LGBTQ+ asylum seekers, as we The of of discretion is the undermining than of The of the that we in of a and of is to the use of discretion in LGBTQ+ discretion on a in ways that are not with of for which be and are discretion is and to be the discretion is it is in ways that are with in this with for which be all individuals are and with the and at in this case the of asylum to those in of from it may that RSD officers are to and it may that their discretion is being in this the for the appropriate use of discretion in and in doing the which trust be and the and of may the of the system, and the trust in it may however, about the of the the prevailing homo- and that RSD and within the system may does it to the difficulties that these may including the prevailing stereotypes of or the ways in which the operate within a and system that to identify or from discretion and to a at the of the of institutional but does not as a we a system of LGBTQ+ that aims at the on LGBTQ+ among those within the refugee system, but not those on is from that of and in RSD for LGBTQ+ claimants as it not only to the of institutional by the of discretion for RSD but to and about LGBTQ+ people in the refugee system as a is not all LGBTQ+ people seek status as a refugee on and many who may not be in doing because of the attitudes that they and experience over the course of their refugee LGBTQ+ from the of or that is often as for the and often specific, experiences of people from In the case of LGBTQ+ asylum seekers, is the that and of social and that to their unique the and experiences of LGBTQ+ and their to social and that may be from the of being we this article, one of the difficulties in RSD for LGBTQ+ claimants to the ways in which the stereotypes of being queer often the in these processes, with detrimental to the of LGBTQ+ people who not these these LGBTQ+ is that the unique experiences of being queer and the ways in which this may be within the from which the is In LGBTQ+ that to (1) the and attitudes and of those being (2) the of the and experiences of LGBTQ+ and the of being to the and claimants our that on the of the RSD officers and the of the of trust within the RSD for LGBTQ+ two it not the attitudes and LGBTQ+ claimants by the of LGBTQ+ the of and disadvantages to which they may as as of the for and is the case of for international refugee it as a to the and in the existing including the of stereotypes of and the of in LGBTQ+ experiences and to and their of being The in with those with into the LGBTQ+ LGBTQ+ refugee and for LGBTQ+ thus the discretion of RSD to be in ways that are of the experiences of LGBTQ+ including their and The two and of and LGBTQ+ at the discretion of RSD officers in their institutional and at their use of the discretion in ways that are and to the experiences of LGBTQ+ asylum and of LGBTQ+ claimants is for the of relations within the system, and for the of LGBTQ+ people to conceal or be about their or gender identity in these In or the in the system, or the that the attitudes and to their use of discretion in ways that the trust in the system and the two will to and in which LGBTQ+ individuals their case as as that they ought to be granted two on what officers and be to in to the which they will be as by of at claimants over in which they are to the of In of the of for the which they this and for to the of over the course of their for with to 2019; claimants be over the course of RSD We One is with to what officers are about to proceed In LGBTQ+ asylum claimants be in of the that are to be (and which are and that are to be by the officers their claimants to they are being in with the existing and is to asylum claimants over who will their In asylum as in claimants a to a to their this is not always does the of the the of the in claimants are not of this et al. 2021, the of this in that is of the difficulties that and to be a for LGBTQ+ asylum claimants (and be access to the RSD process (and not only after the asylum they they are not being fairly. them a which to they they are being of aims to the by them the to to including with to the detrimental of institutional within the RSD system. these asylum claimants to the attitudes they are are thus from the they not the or use of discretion by the RSD operate as for those the discretion of the is by the to to homo- or the together may to the of trust RSD for LGBTQ+ RSD they are by or by the are in which LGBTQ+ or are highly to those who in a but to that they will be and access to the they we in of their which in LGBTQ+ asylum seekers their trust to RSD and be into The structural to which they are subject be but the we which they their for asylum in the way that they to conceal their LGBTQ+ We institutional as one of the main additional that to the for LGBTQ+ people to conceal their in the RSD that is, a the social and including homo- and transphobia, bleed into the and thus the of relations between the RSD and LGBTQ+ In to the risk of institutional and the of or use of we for the institutional of RSD (1) the and of and that the within which the discretion of RSD officers be (2) the of LGBTQ+ that about the of ways of being thus the of the RSD officers to their on or and the of the by of about the of the RSD of a of with to the officers their and which the their over homo- or transphobic within the we these will not only for the functioning of the RSD system, with to those in of international protection, but for that to the of institutional trust in the system and among those by that is often by the unique experiences of LGBTQ+ and the stereotypes and that to be to of this at the and in and at the in We the for and to and the two for that this by the of The of

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.