Experiences of asylum interviews by asylum officials, interpreters and asylum seekers in Finland
| Date | 12 February 2025 |
| Pages | 260-280 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-09-2024-0085 |
| Published date | 12 February 2025 |
| Author | Jenny Skrifvars,Anna Ilmoni,Linnea Siegfrids,Maria Galán,Hedayat Selim,Laura Stevens,Julia Korkman,Jan Antfolk |
Experiences of asylum interviews by
asylum officials, interpreters and
asylum seekers in Finland
Jenny Skrifvars, Anna Ilmoni, Linnea Siegfrids, Maria Gal
an, Hedayat Selim, Laura Stevens,
Julia Korkman and Jan Antfolk
Abstract
Purpose –Recent legal psychological research has highlighted shortcomings in asylum interviews;
however, few studies have examinedhow the interview participants (interviewer, interpreterand asylum
seeker) experience and perceive the interviews. The purpose of this study was to explore how these
interview participants experience rapport and communication within asylum interviews, as well as to
investigate how well interviewers’ and interpreters’ views align with empirical evidence regarding best-
practiceinterviewing.
Design/methodology/approach –Interviewers(n¼62), interpreters (n¼63) and asylum seekers (n¼
49) answered an online survey with mainly closed questions about preparation, rapport, interview
content, interpretation and overall experiences of the interviews. Interviewers and interpreters reported
experiences from interviews conducted in 2021, whereas asylum seekers referred to their interview
experiencesfrom 2016 to 2022. Data were explored descriptively.
Findings –The views of interviewers and interpreters were mostly aligned with evidence-based
interviewing recommendations. However, contrary to recommendations, interpretersreported favouring
closed questionsover open prompts. Most asylum seekers reported feelingnervous or afraid during the
interviews, and three-fourths reported difficulties in sharing their experiences and disclosing personal
information. This indicates that more work on how to build rapportin cross-cultural, interpreter-assisted
interviews is needed.The interpreters’ preference for using closedquestions presents a risk to interview
quality that should be mitigated through training for interpreters as well as improved collaboration
betweeninterviewers and interpreters.
Originality/value –To the best of the authors’ knowledge,this is the first study to explore experiences of
asyluminterviews from the perspectives of interviewers,interpreters and asylum seekers.
Keywords Asylum interview, Asylum seekers, Investigative interviewing, Interpretation, Rapport,
Cross-cultural interviewing
Paper type Research paper
Millio ns of individuals are forced to flee war, violence and persecution each year and
seek protection outside of their home countries. In 2023, over one million people sought
asylum within the European Union (EU; Eurostat, 2024). Despite the clear theoretical
definition of a refugee (United Nations, 1951), the procedure of adjudicating asylum claims is
complex, as physical evidence supporting the applicants’ testimonies is rare [European Union
Agency for Asylum (EUAA), 2024;Thomas, 2006]. Consequently, the interviews conducted with
the asylum seekers are often the basis for the entire application. To reach correct asylum
decisions, it is vital that the interviewing methods are based on empirical research.
Despite this, asylum interviews have only recently received more focus from researchers in
legal psychology (see, e.g. Bruı
¨ne et al., 2023;Skrifvars et al.,2020,2022a,2022b;
van Veldhuizen, 2017). Although the asylum context differs from the criminal context,
Jenny Skrifvars,
Anna Ilmoni, Linnea
Siegfrids, Maria Gal
an,
Hedayat Selim and Laura
Stevens are all based at
Faculty of Arts, Psychology
and Theology, A
˚bo
Akademi University, Abo,
Finland. Julia Korkman is
based at Faculty of Social
Sciences, Business and
Economics, A
˚bo Akademi
University, Abo, Finland
and HEUNI, The European
Institute for Crime
Prevention and Control,
Helsinki, Finland. Jan
Antfolk is based at Faculty
of Arts, Psychology and
Theology, A
˚bo Akademi
University, Abo, Finland.
Received 9 September 2024
Revised 20 December 2024
16 January 2025
17 January 2025
Accepted 20 January 2025
Funding: A.I. and L.S. were
funded by a grant from the
A
˚bobo Akademi University
Foundation to J.A. for the
project Psychology at the
Frontiers: Asylum Interviewing
and Decision-Making.
PAGE 260 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY jVOL. 15 NO. 2 2025,pp. 260-280, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 DOI 10.1108/JCP-09-2024-0085
parallels can be drawn between an asylum seeker and 1) an eyewitness (as both must
remember and describe personally witnessed experiences), 2) a victim (as both may be in
vulnerable positions and have experienced negative life events), and 3) a suspect (as both
may be inclined to lie, e.g. to increase the chances of receiving asylum; van Veldhuizen,
2017). Importantly, research on investigative interviews in a variety of settings show that
relying on certain principles is advisable, such as building rapport and asking open
questions in an information-gathering style (Brandon et al.,2018;Meissner et al., 2023;
M
endez et al., 2021). However, asylum interviews are characterized by a multitude of
complicating factors, such as differences in cultural background between interview
participants, interviewees with experiences of negative life events, and the presence of an
interpreter (Bruı
¨ne et al.,2023;Herlihy and Turner, 2009). This interplay may impact
memory recall and hinder effective communication and full disclosures in interviews
(Vredeveldt et al.,2023). Moreover,the interviews are affected by the increasingly sceptical
and hostile socio-political environment, sometimes described as a “culture of disbelief”
(Jubany, 2011;Ottosson et al., 2024). Thus, more research is needed on how to adapt
recommended interviewing strategies (e.g. rapport building) to interpreter-assisted, cross-
cultural interviews withvulnerable witness, such as asylum interviews.
Previous studies have examined the quality of asylum interviews focusing on the questions
asked (Skrifvars et al.,2020,2022a;van Veldhuizen et al.,2018). The quality of the
interpretation in asylum interviews has also been the focus of several authors (see, e.g.
Po
¨llabauer, 2023 for a review of the literature), and a recent review summarized research on
asylum-seeking youth (Chilliaket al.,2024). However, there is a lack of studies including the
perspectives of how all interview participants (i.e. the interviewer, interpreter and the asylum
seeker) perceive the interviews. These perceptions may have much to say about how well
evidence-based interviewing strategies are implemented and perceived within this context.
Therefore, the current study aimed to expand the knowledge on how asylum interviewing
procedures can be improved by collecting experiences and views about the interviews
from interviewers, interpreters and asylum seekers in Finland.
Asylum in Finland
Finland receives between 2,000 and 5,000 asylum applications yearly (The Finnish Immigration
Service, 2024a). This number has been relatively stable since 2015, when over 30,000
applications were registered in Finland. In 2024, the acceptance rate of asylum applications was
38%, whereas the rejection rate was 21% (The Finnish Immigration Service, 2024a). The rest of
the applications were either dismissed (15%), indicating that the application was not processed
in Finland (e.g. due to the Dublin Regulation) or expired (26%), indicating that the applicant has
withdrawn the application or left the country (The Finnish Immigration Service, 2024b). The
processing time of an application is 6 months (The FinnishI mmigrationService, 2024b).
Finland adheres to the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which defines the basic
procedures and principles of the asylum procedure within the EU (European Comission,
2024). Asylum seekers in Finland register their asylum application with the border control or
police upon arrival. Next, the applicant is invited to a full-day-long asylum interview with the
Finnish Immigration Service. If necessary, more interviews can be arranged. The interviews
are conducted in line with the guidelines on interviewing principles and techniques
provided by the EUAA (EASO, 2019).
Evidence-based interviewing recommendations
To ensure the acquisition of reliable information, it is crucial to employ evidence-based
interviewing techniques (Brandon et al.,2018;M
endez et al.,2021). The guidelines and
training materials for asylum interviewers in the EU, provided by the EUAA, are largely in
line with empirical research on best-practice interviewing (EASO, 2019). In what follows we
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2025 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY jPAGE 261
To continue reading
Request your trial