Thesis argues that the credible fear interview hampers asylum claims through biased administrative practices, emphasizing exclusion.
This thesis argues that the credible fear interview is not a neutral administrative tool for screening asylum claims, but a process embedded within a broader legal, administrative, and political architecture that systematically disadvantages asylum seekers. While often framed as a preliminary safeguard, the interview operates through rules, procedures, and discretionary practices that shape how fear must be articulated and evaluated. Situating the credible fear interview from 2014-2024—a period marked by the expansion of expedited removal and increased reliance on credible fear screenings—this project demonstrates that shifts in immigration enforcement during this decade reflect not a fundamental transformation of the system, but rather an intensification and heightened visibility of exclusionary mechanisms that were already embedded within it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grace Lee (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: