Fake asylum story

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/celine-aho-nienne/blog/210618/pourquoi-il-ne-faut-pas-chercher-la-verite-des-recits-des-demandeurs-dasile?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Sharing&xtor=CS3-66

This text was written in the context of the conference: "Violence and narrative: collect, transcribe, transmit, the human and social sciences face the stories of violence", 28-29 May 2018, Paris Diderot University.

Scientific coordination: Marie-Caroline Saglio Yatzimirsky (CESSMA, ANR LIMINAL - Inalco), Laetitia Bucaille (CESSMA), Elise Pestre (Paris-Diderot)



The truth of the story



"The declarations of the interested party appeared coherent, detailed and spontaneous ..." Thus begins the standard sentence of the OFPRA granting the refugee status to an asylum seeker. "Credible, plausible, emotional, personal ..." Regardless of the synonyms, none of the qualifiers used by the Office refer to the truth of the facts. Clio Simon's film highlights it in its title: "Is it a true story telling? ".
As a Protection Officer (PO), I do not seek the truth of the claimant's story. My decision on whether or not to grant refugee status does not answer the question: "Is this a true story? It follows from the following:

1) Does the narrative fall within the scope of the Geneva Convention?

2) Does the asylum seeker meet the bureaucratic and political expectations of the Office?

3) Does it look like the "good refugee" figure?

4) Will he still succeed in convincing me?

These questions do not relate to the search for the truth of the claimant's story because it is not understandable (5).
1) The Geneva Convention Article 1 of the Geneva Convention states that "the term" refugee "applies to any person who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a certain social group or its political opinions ". It does not matter the truth of the claimant's story. Its narrative schema must correspond to one of the five stated criteria. An anecdote happened to me, recounted by Shumona Sinha in his novel "Assommons les pauvres". While she is an interpreter at OFPRA, we are together receiving yet another Bangladeshi political activist. In the chapter titled "I am going to tell you the truth," here is what she writes: "That day, Lucia finally told him that it was really not worthwhile to continue the interview because she could not believe what he was saying. She offered to think, to pause. And added that he could change his story, that it was not serious at all. But only she had to believe it. He was then questioned about his accommodation. Was it ok? And who was the man who sheltered him? (...) - Can I tell you the truth? I did not believe my ears. (...) I leaned towards the man like an amateur fisherman towards a trout that came to the surface of the water. - I'm a trucker. I was returning from the big city to my village. And on my way I knocked down a man. I was accused of murder. I ran away. The man seemed both relieved and worried. He feared the rest. - So ? I told you the truth. Lucia explained to him later. It was the routine. I knew it. The man did not know it. These people were brought to tell the truth so that in the end they would not do anything about it. It was a cul-de-sac. " This excerpt shows how insubstantial the truth of the story is if it does not fall within the criteria of the Geneva Convention. It was not me who created this cul-de-sac situation. The vicissitudes of his story were off-camera. A colleague once told me: "The Geneva Convention makes it necessary to distinguish between unhappiness and legally protected misfortune". 2) The rigidity of the Office and its policy The OFPRA imposes on the asylum seeker a double exercise: that of the written account written in French on a double page and that of the oral narrative. The Office is rigid on this last point. Maintenance is the only way to obtain refugee status. During his oral performance, the OP assesses the fluidity of the answers and the spontaneity of the comments of the asylum seeker. I often think of this young Georgian deserter. During his interview, he spreads drawings on the desk: horses with bulging eyes dying in the middle of tangled whirlwinds. He offers me his works as if they were self-sufficient to express his story. He does not speak. He does not answer my questions. Words have no hold on him. He hands me his drawings. I can not fill the boxes of his marital status, detail his military career, black lines of his flight from the country just with his drawings. So resigned, he puts them in his bag and pushes the exit door. On the other hand, this Armenian asylum seeker can not stop talking. It describes the events of summer 2011 and the processions in the streets of Yerevan. He is inexhaustible. I propose an agreement. My boss summons me. He explains that our President Nicolas Sarkosy has just visited the Armenian capital to celebrate the friendship between our two countries, that in a few months, the board of directors will bring Armenia in the list of "safe" countries , that contracts are being signed ... I understand the directive that is ordered to me. I therefore conclude the case as follows: "Despite detailed and high-quality remarks, fears of persecution of the person in case of return home are unfounded. Proposal for rejection. " The truth of the story, whether it is shouting in silence or in a stream of words, is derisory in the face othe administrative machine and its political interests. 3) The figure of the "good refugee" There is a doctrine at OFPRA that FOs undertake to keep secret for life. It is a document of thousands of pages that builds the subconscious of vocational training by categorizing and prioritizing asylum seekers. The doctrine details maintenance methods, questions to ask and those not to ask. Thus, a story that fits perfectly into a sheet of doctrine is more likely to be audible, believed and validated by a PO. It is not the truth of the claimant's story that prevails but the recognition of the claimant in one of the profiles of the "good refugee". When I was in office, Sri Lankan "good refugee" par excellence was that of the Tamil militant. During my first interview, I receive a young Tamil raped by a Sinhalai soldie
He is not part of the LTTE, he has no political commitment, he has always respected the curfew imposed by the army. His story is tragically simple. He made a detour to buy a pack of cigarettes and his route crossed that of the military. My boss refuses my agreement. He argues that the profile of the asylum seeker does not correspond to the Geneva Convention or the doctrine. He describes this rape as "trivial fact". My tutor supports me and insists: "In times of war, rape is a weapon. After weeks of negotiations, he finally signs the positive decision. This example illustrates how the truth of the story is flickering in the face of the weight of the doctrine. The doxa infiltrates the patterns of perception and judgment and all destinies that deviate from them are rejected. 4) The test of routine and the intimate conviction The stories follow one another and look like each other. What's more normal ? What is more like a war than another war? The routine uses the stories and the description of the persecutions no longer moves any colleague. Even the truth does not seem real anymore. Asylum-seekers need to redouble their efforts so that their faces do not become part of the mass of the rejected. The imperative of the destocking and the pressure of the numbers transform me into a rejection machine. Going down to the interview, I wonder if the asylum seeker will still succeed in convincing me. The time of the decision is short. My boss advises me to trust my intimate conviction, as if to recognize a good asylum seeker was in the mode of evidence intimate. In the depths of my being, I know that it is a subterfuge to hide the powerlessness of the Office to hear the truth of the stories. 5) The truth of the story is not understandable A few months after the terrible earthquake of Haiti, I landed on the air of OFPRA in Guadeloupe. Thousands of orphans file asylum applications. They do not have a story. They only invoke the death of their loved ones. This truth is palpable as they hand me photographs of flower coffins and white mortuary crowns for children. Their words resonate like the roar of the earthquake. I tell them that this tragedy does not fall within the scope of the Geneva Convention. Often the interpreter no longer translates. She whispers, "He's repeating the same thing. The earthquake. Then, she lowers her eyes. Haitians bless me with "May God keep you" by imagining that their honesty will be rewarded. Soon, they will receive a rejection letter and it will be a new shake for them. I understand then that the Geneva Convention, the bureaucratic procedures, the doctrine, the intimate conviction are so many artifices to preserve the good little soldiers of the Office of the truth because to try to hear it would make them crazy.