(In)credible Violence: An Analysis of Post-Alvarado Domestic Violence Asylum Cases in the United States

ABSTRACT

Every year, women from around the world apply for asylum in the United States to escape an abusive partner. In this article I find that domestic violence applicants may not be interpreted as viable truth tellers since they are missing specific markers of credibility, including legitimacy of fear, coherence and corroboration, and proof of no culpability. I link these questions of credibility to broader US discourses about gender-based violence and racialized conceptions of victimhood, which show a preference for credentialed knowledge over women’s experiences and employ assumptions about autonomous, linear decision-making. I argue that the deployment of these discourses represents a tactic of exclusion, likely motivated by fears of immigration. Asylum adjudication practices (including credibility determinations) must address these issues in order to secure the health and well-being of women fleeing abusive partners in their countries of origin.