When inconsistency is not a credibility problem

Assessing the credibility of refugee and protection claims is difficult work. Two indicators commonly used are consistency and plausibility: does the account hang together, and does it seem believable on its face?

Those questions sound straightforward. But research from psychology, neurobiology, behavioural economics and anthropology shows that memory, decision-making and behaviour can produce inconsistencies or accounts that seem implausible without the underlying claim being false.

What the research shows

Trauma, stress, language barriers, cultural difference in narrative style, the passage of time, and the conditions in which a person is asked to recount events can all affect how a story is told. Minor inconsistencies between interviews, or details that seem unlikely to someone unfamiliar with the claimant's context, are not reliable proof that a claim is fabricated.

In research on New Zealand's Immigration and Protection Tribunal, Case Mayo examined published appeal decisions from 2020 to 2022 and identified varied approaches to inconsistency and implausibility in credibility assessments. Some decisions engage carefully with the evidence. Others treat inconsistency or implausibility in ways that do not align well with contemporary scientific literature, or undertake psychological assessments for which the decision-maker is not equipped.

Why this matters for clients

If you are preparing a protection claim, or responding to credibility concerns, it helps to understand that inconsistency is not synonymous with dishonesty. How evidence is presented, what context is supplied, and how questions are answered can all matter as much as the category of visa or protection sought.

This article is general commentary only, not immigration advice. If your matter involves refugee or protection status, seek advice suited to your circumstances.