Establishing (Un)certainty: Language and Reproducing Suspicion in Forensic Medical Evaluations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.41698Keywords:
forensic medical evaluations, rhetoric, asylum, adjudicationAbstract
While forensic medical evaluations (FMEs) have been shown to bolster rates of asylum approval in the United States, a discourse analysis of deidentified FMEs reveals a more nuanced function. In the suspicious and disbelieving culture of asylum adjudication, the rhetorical strategies and devices along with mandated neutral language in FMEs can inadvertently marginalize, reproduce suspicion of, and introduce (un)certainty about applicant testimony. Thus, FMEs can be co-opted to become a technology of state control over asylum seeker’s lives by allowing adjudicators to utilize them as flexible justification to support arbitrary asylum decisions under the guise of medical evidence.
Metrics
References
Aarts, R., Wanrooij, L. V., Bloemen, E., & Smid, G. (2019). Expert medico-legal reports: The relationship between levels of consistency and judicial outcomes in asylum seekers in the Netherlands. Torture Journal, 29(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.7146/torture.v29i1.111205
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804764025
Arastu, N. (2022). Access to a doctor, access to justice? An empirical study on the impact of forensic medical examinations in preventing deportations. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 35, 47–116. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2022/05/35HHRJ47-Arastu.pdf
Ardalan, S. (2015). Expert as aid and impediment: Navigating barriers to effective asylum representation. In B. N. Lawrance & G. Ruffer (Eds.), Adjudicating refugee and asylum status: The role of witness, expertise, and testimony (pp. 147–165). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107706460
Atkinson, H. G., Wyka, K., Hampton, K., Seno, C. L., Yim, E. T., Ottenheimer, D., & Arastu, N. S. (2021). Impact of forensic medical evaluations on immigration relief grant rates and correlates of positive outcomes in the United States. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 84, Article 102272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2021.102272
Bauer, J. (2015). Gang asylum (Guatemala, Mara-18) victory in Hartford Immigration Court. LexisNexis. https://web.archive.org/web/20220121052732/https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/gang-asylum-guatemala-mara-18-victory-in-hartford-immigration-court
Bauer, J. (2022). Overview and historical background of U.S. asylum law. In K. C. McKenzie (Ed.), Asylum medicine: A clinician’s guide (pp. 1–13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81580-6_1
Beneduce, R. (2015). The moral economy of lying: Subjectcraft, narrative capital, and uncertainty in the politics of asylum. Medical Anthropology, 34(6), 551–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2015.1074576
Bohmer, C., & Shuman, A. (2018). Political asylum deceptions: The culture of suspicion. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67404-9
Borrelli, L. M., Lindberg, A., & Wyss, A. (2022). States of suspicion: How institutionalised disbelief shapes migration control regimes. Geopolitics, 27(4), 1025–1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2021.2005862
Fassin, D. (2013). The precarious truth of asylum. Public Culture, 25(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-1890459
Fassin, D., & D’Halluin, E. (2005). The truth from the body: Medical certificates as ultimate evidence for asylum seekers. American Anthropologist, 107(4), 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2005.107.4.597
Feneberg, V., Gill, N., Hoellerer, N. I. J., & Scheinert, L. (2022). It’s not what you know, it’s how you use it: The application of country of origin information in judicial refugee status determination decisions—A case study of Germany. International Journal of Refugee Law, 34(2), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac036
Ferdowsian, H., McKenzie, K. C., & Zeidan, A. (2019). Asylum medicine: Standard and best practices. Health and Human Rights Journal, 21(1), 215–225. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6586957/
Forrest, D. (2000). Guide to writing medical reports on survivors of torture. In Guidelines for the examination of survivors of torture (pp. 35–53). Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. https://forrestmls.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Guidelines_for_the_examination_of-1.pdf
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (2002). The birth of the clinic (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203406373 (Original work published 1963)
Fredal, J. (2018). Is the enthymeme a syllogism? Philosophy & Rhetoric, 51(1), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.1.0024
Gillespie, L. (2024). The language of pain: Punishment and intelligibility at the medical border. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 40(2), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2024.2330059
Gilman, D. L. (2023). Making protection unexceptional: A reconceptualization of the US asylum system. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4376159
Good, A. (2004). “Undoubtedly an expert”? Anthropologists in British asylum courts. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10(1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2004.00182.x
Haas, B. M. (2023). Suspended lives: Navigating everyday violence in the US asylum system. University of California Press.
Hampton, K., & Mishori, R. (2023). What constitutes a high-quality, comprehensive medico-legal asylum affidavit in the United States immigration context? A multi-sectoral consensus-building modified Delphi. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 96, Article 102513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2023.102513
Hancock, B. H. (2018). Michel Foucault and the problematics of power: Theorizing DTCA and medicalized subjectivity. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 43(4), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy010
Hartelius, J. E. (2010). The rhetoric of expertise. Lexington Books.
Jubany, O. (2017). Screening asylum in a culture of disbelief: Truths, denials and skeptical borders. Palgrave Macmillan Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40748-7
Kagan, M. (2015). Believable victims: Asylum credibility and the struggle for objectivity. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 16(1), 123–131. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43773674
Kelly, T. (2012). Sympathy and suspicion: torture, asylum, and humanity. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18(4), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2012.01790.x
Khan, T. H., & MacEachen, E. (2021). Foucauldian discourse analysis: Moving beyond a social constructionist analytic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211018009
Kobelinsky, C. (2019). The “inner belief” of French asylum judges. In N. Gill & A. Good (Eds.), Asylum determination in Europe: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 53–68). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94749-5
Lawrance, B. (2018, May 31). The modernity of witchcraft asylum claims. Contending Modernities. https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/field-notes/the-modernity-of-witchcraft-asylum-claims/
Lawrance, B. N. (2019). Country of origin information, technologies of suspicion, and the erasure of the supernatural in African refugee claims. In B. M. Haa & A. Shuman (Eds.), Technologies of suspicion and the ethics of obligation in political asylum (pp. 129–152). Ohio University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv224v04m.9
Lupton, D. (1992). Discourse analysis: A new methodology for understanding the ideologies of health and illness. Australian Journal of Public Health, 16(2), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.1992.tb00043.x
Lustig, S. L., Kureshi, S., Delucchi, K. L., Iacopino, V., & Morse, S. C. (2007). Asylum grant rates following medical evaluations of maltreatment among political asylum applicants in the United States. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 10(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-007-9056-8
Magalhães, B. (2016). The politics of credibility: Assembling decisions on asylum applications in Brazil. International Political Sociology, 10(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olw005
Miller, A. B. (1974). Aristotle on habit (εθō) and character (ηθō): Implications for the Rhetoric. Speech Monographs, 41(4), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757409375855
Miller, B., Keith, L. C., & Holmes, J. S. (2015). Leveling the odds: The effect of quality legal representation in cases of asymmetrical capability. Law & Society Review, 49(1), 209–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12123
Misra-Latty, S. (2025). Physician advocacy in a “culture of disbelief”: A critical-interpretive study of asylum medicine. International Journal of Communication, 19, 2616–2633. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/22408
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2022). Istanbul protocol. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/2022-06-29/Istanbul-Protocol_Rev2_EN.pdf
Patel, B., & Iacopino, V. J. (2013, October 1). Affidavit of Bina Patel, MD and Vincent James Iacopino MD, PhD in support of Mr. ___. Society of Asylum Medicine. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f32b6b841796024eb295de2/t/6036c7e80ce7651b554ab7c9/1614202856191/Iacapino+affidavit.pdf
Peart, J. M., Tracey, E. H., & Lipoff, J. B. (2016). The role of physicians in asylum evaluation: Documenting torture and trauma. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(3), Article 417. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0053
Physicians for Human Rights. (2012). Examining asylum seekers: A clinician’s guide to physical and psychological evaluations of torture and ill treatment.
Prenosil, J. D. (2012). The embodied enthymeme: A hybrid theory of protest. JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 32(1), 279–303.
Ramji-Nogales, J., Schoenholtz, A., & Schrag, P. (2007). Refugee roulette: Disparities in asylum adjudication. Stanford Law Review, 60(2), 295–411. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/RefugeeRoulette.pdf
Rapp, C. (2002, Mar 15). Aristotle’s Rhetoric. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy Department, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
Rosenberg, M., Levinson, R., & McNeill, R. (2017, October 18). Special report—They fled danger for a high-stakes bet on U.S. immigration courts. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/special-report-they-fled-danger-for-a-high-stakes-bet-on-us-immigration-cour-idUSKBN1CM1UJ/
Ryan, K. J., Myers, N., & Jones, R. (2016). Rethinking ethos: A feminist ecological approach to Rhetoric. Southern Illinois University Press.
Segal, J., & Richardson, A. W. (2003). Introduction. Scientific ethos: Authority, authorship, and trust in the sciences. Configurations, 11(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2004.0023
Shuman, A., & Bohmer, C. (2004). Representing trauma: Political asylum narrative. Journal of American Folklore, 117(466), 394–414. https://doi.org/10.1353/jaf.2004.0100
Shuman, A., & Bohmer, C. (2010). Narrating atrocity: Uses of evidence in the political asylum process (DIIS working paper 2010:25). https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/diis/0019954/f_0019954_16964.pdf
Smith, H. E., Lustig, S. L., & Gangsei, D. (2015). Incredible until proven credible: Mental health expert testimony and the systemic and cultural challenges facing asylum applicants. In B. N. Lawrance & G. Ruffer (Eds.), Adjudicating refugee and asylum status: The role of witness, expertise, and testimony (pp. 180–201). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107706460
Society of Asylum Medicine. (2013). Declaration of YYY, M.D. Concerning LM. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f32b6b841796024eb295de2/t/6036c5ecc19d7e0057d12f8e/1614202348578/Redacted+2+copy.pdf
Society of Asylum Medicine. (2017). Declaration of YYY, MD regarding XXX. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f32b6b841796024eb295de2/t/6036c5d53d76d47bb6328759/1614202325396/Redacted.pdf
Sorgoni, B. (2019). The location of truth: Bodies and voices in the Italian asylum procedure. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 42(1), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12282
Souter, J. (2011). A culture of disbelief or denial? Critiquing refugee status determination in the United Kingdom. Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 1(1), 48–59. https://www.academia.edu/466835/A_Culture_of_Disbelief_or_Denial_Critiquing_Refugee_Status_Determination_in_the_United_Kingdom
Tay, K., Frommer, N., Hunter, J., Silove, D., Pearson, L., San Roque, M., Redman, R., Bryant, R. A., Manicavasagar, V., & Steel, Z. (2013). A mixed-method study of expert psychological evidence submitted for a cohort of asylum seekers undergoing refugee status determination in Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.029
Terretta, M. (2015). Fraudulent asylum seeking as transnational mobilization: The case of Cameroon. In I. Berger, T. Redeker Hepner, B. N. Lawrance, J. T. Tague, & Meredith Terretta (Eds.), African asylum at a crossroads: Activism, testimony, and refugee rights (pp. 58–74). Ohio University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1rfsp0z.7
UNHCR. (n.d.). Types of asylum. https://help.unhcr.org/usa/applying-for-asylum/types-of-asylum/
UNHCR. (1951). Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees
Wallace, R. M., & Wylie, K. (2013). The reception of expert medical evidence in refugee status determination. International Journal of Refugee Law, 25(4), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eet046
Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights. (2015). Asylum evaluation training manual (2nd ed.). Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights. https://wcchr.com/sites/default/files/wcchr_handbook.pdf
Zeidan, A., & Ferdowsian, H. (2022). Physical evaluation of asylum seekers. In K. C. McKenzie (Ed.), Asylum medicine: A clinician’s guide (pp. 31–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81580-6
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Andrew Chan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Refuge authors retain the copyright over their work, and license it to the general public under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License International (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license allows for non-commercial use, reproduction and adaption of the material in any medium or format, with proper attribution. For general information on Creative Commons licences, visit the Creative Commons site. For the CC BY-NC 4.0 license, review the human readable summary.
