Illusions of objectivity: The two functions of country of origin information in asylum assessment

Erna Bodström

doi:10.1093/migration/mnac033

Illusions of objectivity: The two functions of country of origin information in asylum assessment

Bodström, Erna 2022-10-29 00:00:00 The article argues that the intertextuality of country of origin information (COI) plays a signiﬁcant part in constructing asylum decisions and therefore the lives and futures of those affected by forced migration. COI in asylum decisions is based on COI reports, which in turn are based on other COI reports, interviews, or media materials. This makes them intertextual, that is, referring to and transforming other texts. That is, COI reports typically include dozens or even hundreds of pages of in- formation, which are abbreviated in order to be used in a few paragraphs of asylum decisions. This is done through recontextualisation, that is, by selecting certain parts of the text and reformulating them to the new context. The article analyses COI in 67 negative ﬁrst-instance asylum decisions and in 38 COI reports and similar sources through the concept of intertextuality. It argues that COI has two functions in the asylum decisions, personal and general. Personal COI is used to assess the truthful- ness of the asylum applicant’s persecution narrative, whereas general COI is used to evaluate the overall security and human rights situation in the country of origin. The article shows that even though the decisions tend to present COI as objective information, it can easily be biased, irrelevant, and illogical, therefore creating an il- lusion of objectivity. Keywords: forced migration, country of origin information, COI, asylum decisions, intertextuality 1. Introduction A statement made by the Finnish Immigration Service in May 2016 aroused international attention. According to the Service (2016a), the safety situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia had improved; therefore it would become more difﬁcult for citizens of the said countries to receive international protection in Finland. More precisely the Service stated https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnac033 V C The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creati- vecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 2 E. BODSTROM that the countries no longer had geographical areas to which a person could not be safely deported. At the time ISIS governed notable parts of Iraq, including the city of Mosul, yet the statement implied that even Mosul was a safe place to return. The announcement was made in the aftermath of Finland, along with the rest of Europe, receiving an increased number of asylum applicants. Unlike in the European Union, in Finland Syrians were only the fourth largest group of asylum applicants after citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia (Eurostat 2022). While the European states mainly welcomed Syrians, they at the same time became more restrictive to asylum seekers from other countries. The statement of the Finnish Immigration Service should perhaps therefore not be looked at as an ob- jective fact, but rather as knowledge politics (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019) in the ‘race to the bottom’ to make Finland more unattractive for migrants, as was done by various European states at the time (Rosset and Achermann 2019). As such, the change in policy can be interpreted as an example of the symbolic use of country of origin information (COI), that is, such information is used not only to inform about the country of origin but also about the asylum politics of the country of destination (Rosset, Liodden, and Maia 2015). Seeking asylum is a strain of human migration that has become widely mediatised and politicised in debates. COI plays an important part in asylum decision making and has seen an increased research interest in recent years, although the total number of studies remains fairly small. COI has mainly been approached through the perspective of legal studies (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Gibb and Good 2013; Bednar 2015) and social an- thropology (Good 2004; Affolter 2021; Rosset 2021), but also through studies of politics (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019) and public administration (Johannesson 2012). It has also been approached from the perspective of knowledge production (Good 2004; Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019; Van der Kist and Rosset 2020; Rosset 2021) and usage by the decision makers (Affolter 2021; Liodden 2022) in the deci- sion documents (Rousseau 2002; Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Pettitt, Townhead, and Huber 2008; Johannesson 2012; Liodden 2022). COI exists, in essence, in the form of texts, yet it has not really been studied as such. Still understanding how country informa- tion takes shape and transforms from document to document is important in under- standing what kind of an effect it can have on asylum decision making. The article analyses COI as illusions of objectivity, that is, it presupposes that COI is often presented and understood as objective, but is actually not objective by nature (Gibb and Good 2013). Rather, formed by choosing from and recontextualising intertwined texts, COI is inherently intertextual (see Fairclough 1992; Reisigl and Wodak 2001; Farrelly 2020). The question the current article aims to answer is: how is COI intertextual- ly constructed in asylum decisions? The article shows how the intertextual choices related to COI can affect the asylum assessment and how the COI in the asylum decisions can be contradictory with the COI reports it is based on. The article contributes to the growing literature about the knowledge politics of COI and therefore, on a wider scale, to studies about asylum and migration. As Bennett (2018: 95–101) has shown, migration policy texts are discursively connected to other phenomena, such a concepts, legislation, and political discourses. Therefore, the article also contributes to understanding the links in asylum decision making to the migration political restrictions made after the increased in- ﬂux of asylum applicants. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 3 2. COI in asylum assessment COI is an essential part of asylum decision making (Pettitt, Townhead and Huber 2008; Gibb and Good 2013), as the applicant’s country of origin forms the basis of asylum as- sessment (Schittenhelm and Schneider 2017). In general, COI describes and estimates the security situation, political rights, and rights of minority groups, access to services such as housing and healthcare, as well as risk proﬁles and possible agents of persecution. The COI reports are usually gathered and produced by a specialised branch within the national asylum institutions albeit one that is detached from the decision-making unit (Rosset and Achermann 2019). This is also the case with the national focus of this article, Finland, where COI is produced by a specialised unit within the ﬁrst instance decision-making in- stitution, namely the Country Information Service (Maatietopalvelu) of the Finnish Immigration Service. The asylum decisions are made by the Asylum Unit (Turvapaikkayksikko ¨), and the Country Information Service supports the decision making by compiling reports about the security and overall situation in selected countries as well as of the selected groups (e.g. women, children, and political and religious groups), pos- sible reasons of asylum (forced recruitment and tribal practices) and armed groups. They are also responsible for updating the COI database and providing information for speciﬁc queries by the decision makers. The information provided by the Country Information Service is used by the decision makers of the Finnish Immigration Service as well as the appeal organs (Staffans 2012: 152) which emphasises the important role of COI, as the same information is used at all levels of the process and is therefore not independently tested at the appeal stage. COI can refer to both COI reports and the COI presented as part of an asylum decision, the latter typically being based on the former. In practice, the COI reports are papers of dozens or even over a hundred pages in length detailing the situation in a given country. The themes they include vary from geographical details and human rights legislation to the situation of minorities and religious and ethnic groups, treatment of political dissi- dents, and conditions of living (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem and de Goede 2019). The reports can discuss the situation overall or concentrate on speciﬁc issues: for example the situation of religious converts, certain political groups, or practices related to sexuality and gender. They can be based on ﬁeldwork or desk research, and desk research can in turn be based on other reports by various immigration services, human rights organisa- tions, experts, and the media (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Good 2004; Gibb and Good 2013). The COI in the asylum decisions is based on the COI reports, with the decisions cutting dozens or hundreds of pages of information into just a few paragraphs. In the decisions, COI is used to assess the country of origin of the applicant (i.e. whether they are from the country they say they are), the applicant’s persecution narrative (i.e. how possible and likely it is that the events told by the applicant would happen in the said country), the be- haviour of the applicant (Affolter 2021), and speciﬁcally the future risk of persecution. Therefore, the COI in the decisions is speciﬁcally related to the country of origin of the applicant and their persecution narrative, that is, the reason, events, and agents of perse- cution. Using shared COI increases the consistency and efﬁciency of decision making, as otherwise the decision maker should conduct fact ﬁnding independently for each asylum Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 4 E. BODSTROM applicant (Bednar 2015). However, because of its repetitive nature, if done poorly, it can also cause harm to a number of asylum applicants (Bednar 2015). In asylum decision making, COI tends to be taken as objective evidence (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Johannesson 2012; Gibb and Good 2013), but as Gibb and Good (2013) argue it cannot in actuality be ‘objective’ because the knowledge production of COI is interpretative by nature. The assumption of objectivity means that COI is taken as ‘an unquestionable truth’ by decision makers, a truth that easily overrides the narrative of the applicant if they are in contradiction (Sweeney 2007; Johannesson 2012; Liodden 2022). For example, if a man was to claim in his narrative that he is facing a threat because of having an extramarital affair, the decision can simply override the narrative based on COI stating that such threat is mainly aimed at women (Johannesson 2012; Bodstro ¨m 2020). Here the COI is therefore treated as ‘the unquestionable truth’ and as a more reli- able information source than the applicant, even though it is actually based on various decisions and interpretations about, for example, which topics are addressed in COI and which sources and parts of them are selected to be used in the COI reports or asylum deci- sions (see Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem and de Goede 2019). Therefore, the non-objectivity of COI is by default also a matter of intertextuality. 3. Intertextuality of COI Intertextuality refers to how texts ‘can transform prior texts and restructure existing con- ventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones’ (Fairclough 1992: 102) and how they link ‘to other texts (explicitly, implicitly, by referring to them or incorporating elements of them)’ (Farrelly 2020: 359). According to Reisigl and Wodak (2001: 37), the texts there- fore ‘cross between ﬁelds, overlap, refer to each other or are in some other way socio- functionally linked with each other’. As COI is essentially formed by referring to other texts and is therefore ‘self-referential’ (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem and de Goede 2019: 75), it is always intertextual. With its various stages of reference, COI forms intertextual chains (Fairclough 2003: 130) or networks of intertexts (Farrelly 2020), with various sources and documents build- ing on one another. If we take the asylum decision as a starting point, the decision usually includes references to COI. In Farrelly’s (2020) terms, the asylum decision is the text, and the COI sources are its preceding intertexts. This is the ﬁrst link in the chain—the link be- tween the asylum decision and its sources. However, usually, the COI reports are based on other sources, be it other reports, interviews, or media texts. These form the preceding intertexts for the COI report, the second link in the chain (see Figure 1). And in case they are also based on other sources, their sources form further links in the chain. Every time a new link is created, the preceding text in the intertextual chain needs to be paraphrased to ﬁt in a new environment and purpose, that is, it needs to be recontextual- ised, a term coined by Bernstein (1990). For example, media texts are usually produced for the purpose of public awareness, not for the purpose of asylum assessment, but media content can be changed and repurposed to be used as COI, that is, to give information particularly about the situation in the country. Similarly, the dozens of pages of the COI reports need to be repurposed to serve the asylum decision, which typically only includes Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 5 Figure 1. The intertextual chain of COI in asylum decisions. a few paragraphs of COI. This is done by selecting certain parts of the text, giving them a new purpose, and contextualising and rearranging them (Linell 1998). Therefore, recon- textualisation holds an important gatekeeping function in asylum assessment, as the way the COI is used can have a determining impact on the end result of the decision. Intertextuality can be divided into manifest intertextuality and interdiscursivity, both playing a role in the COI. Manifest intertextuality refers to explicitly drawing from other texts—what is quoted, when, how, and why—through direct or indirect reporting or using references for example. Interdiscursivity refers to invisible intertextuality, that is, the kind that is drawn from but not marked nor manifested, such as genre (Fairclough 1992: 101–133). In asylum decisions, manifest intertextuality is visible in the COI sources referenced and the information based on them. As for interdiscursivity, the asylum deci- sions can be seen as part of the genre of ‘ofﬁcial notiﬁcations’ (Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 215–222). Interdiscursivity also manifests in other related genres, such as legislation, poli- cies, and the media (Bennett 2018). Although the current article mainly focuses on mani- fest intertextuality, it is also informed by the concept of interdiscursivity. 4. Data and method The data of this article consist of 67 negative ﬁrst-instance asylum decisions made by the Asylum Unit of the Finnish Immigration Service and 38 related publicly available country reports or other similar sources. From an intertextual point-of-view, asylum decisions can be seen as social formations with shared conventions of producing texts (see Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 215–222). Therefore, in this article, the asylum decisions form the texts, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 6 E. BODSTROM that is, the starting point of the analysis and the country reports form the preceding inter- texts (see Farrelly 2020). The asylum decisions in the data were made between March 2016 and March 2017, therefore during the time that Finland introduced new legislation and country reports affecting the decisions. The data include only negative decisions as the positive decisions from the time period are very short and may not include any COI at all, making them not very useful for the scope of this study. The decisions in the data concern applicants from three countries: Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. This is due to the availability of the data and the consequent method of data gathering. As asylum decisions are classiﬁed as conﬁdential in Finland, the decision data were gathered directly from asylum applicants as part of a grass-root project aiming to map their situation and support them. The applicants came from various parts of their countries and they represent various ethnicities and religions. Their reasons for seeking asylum vary from religion to ethnicity and political opinion. Most of the applicants are men, but some decisions concern families including women and children. Therefore, the decisions represent a fairly varied kind of applicants within the said geographical area. As asylum decisions include personal and sensitive information, they need to be handled with utmost care and respect. During data gathering, each applicant was asked to give informed consent about using their decisions in research and publishing. The decisions are discussed anonymously to protect the identities of the applicants. The analysis follows the principles of Fairclough’s (1992) critical discourse analysis. In the analysis, I ﬁrst identiﬁed the COI within the decision texts. I analysed the placement of COI within the decisions and the types of sources used. Then I examined the COI in re- lation to the reasons for asylum presented by the applicant. Finally, I selected certain parts of COI in the decisions for a comparative analysis with the COI reports they refer to. This selection was either done based on the similarity of the COI in the decisions or the clear differences or disconnections. The comparative analysis paid speciﬁc attention to the transformations (Fairclough 1992: 130–133), and the presence and absence (Farrelly 2020) in the texts and intertexts. 5. Analysis: the two functions of COI In this analysis section, I present general ﬁndings about networks of preceding intertexts (Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 215–222; Farrelly 2020) as well as their incorporation through recontextualisation (topics, form, placement, and modality) and functions (Fairclough 1992: 119–120) present in the decisions. Preceding intertexts refer to the sources named and used in the texts and tell which preceding intertexts are included in the texts (Farrelly 2020). In the asylums decisions, this is typically done through the use of in-text referen- ces—similar to the current article—accompanied with a list of references placed at the end of the decision. The preceding intertexts in the data can be divided into four catego- ries by their social practice and typicality (see Table 1). The ﬁrst social practice repre- sented in the data is the reports of national or supranational institutions and non- governmental organisations. They are characterised by being a result of lengthy research and are often produced with the speciﬁc aim to provide COI. A second social practice is mainstream media articles and blog texts by independent authors or think tanks. Even Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 7 Table 1. Social practice and typicality of COI in the asylum decisions SOCIAL PRACTICE Reports (Social) media texts Reports by national and Mainstream media texts Typical supranational institutions TYPICALITY Atypical Reports by NGOs Blogs by independent authors and think tanks though they vary on how ofﬁcial they are, they can in the current context be seen as part of the same social practice because they are often reactionary and fast and are originally produced for other purposes—such as public information sharing—than providing COI. As for typicality, the two most often cited preceding intertexts are reports by national or supranational institutions, such as the national COI units or the United Nations, as well as mainstream media articles. In turn, the two more atypical sources cited are COI reports by NGOs, such as human rights organisations, as well as blogs and think tanks. This indi- cates that the asylum decisions especially form intertextual networks with intertexts from governmental organisations and mainstream media, rather than those of NGOs. Incorporation addresses the question of how the preceding intertexts are recontextual- ised in the decisions, affecting the kind of meanings constructed through intertextuality (Fairclough 1992: 119–120; Linell 1998; Farrelly 2020). The topics of COI discussed in the asylum decisions cover a wide array, including ethnicity, religion, work, armed groups, governmental ofﬁcials, and honour violence as well as general security and societal situ- ation in the area of origin. As for form, COI has a tendency to repeat identically or nearly identically in various decisions regardless of the decision maker. This indicates that the COI has been copy–pasted into the decisions (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Pettitt, Townhead and Huber 2008), which may serve the efﬁciency and uniformity of decision making (Tiilila ¨ 2000). The COI is typically placed in independent paragraphs alternating with the other information, such as the rephrasing the applicant’s narrative, and the judi- cial assessment. Within the decision, COI can be placed in three different sections: ‘facts’ (i.e. as part of assessing if the applicant is personally at risk of persecution); ‘judicial as- sessment’ (i.e. as part of evaluating the general security situation and living conditions in the country or area of origin); or ‘internal ﬂight alternative’ (IFA, i.e. to evaluate, in case their home area has been deemed too unsafe, whether they can be obliged to seek safety in another area within their country rather than in the country of destination, see Schultz 2019). These are the names of the sections used in the decisions. Based on the content, ‘facts’ are about the credibility assessment based on both the narrative of the applicant and COI and, consequent to those, the future risk of persecution. ‘Judicial assessment’ is about reﬂecting the credibility and risk against the legislation in Finland (speciﬁcally the Aliens Act, 2004) and whether those make the applicant eligible to asylum, subsidiary pro- tection, or—prior to the legal changes in May 2016—humanitarian protection. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 8 E. BODSTROM Modality indicates the certainty of information (Fairclough 2003: 170–171), and the COI in the decisions presents a strong certainty. This is visible in three ways. First, the lack of modality markers in the text, words such as ‘can’ or ‘perhaps’, which would indi- cate uncertainty or hesitation. Secondly, the lack of contradictions or alternate informa- tion in the COI paragraphs, implies that the sources are by large in agreement. Thirdly, the strings of sources following the COI paragraphs, that is a paragraph can be followed by over 10 references, implying that the information presented is packed up by various sources, hence increasing its certainty. These three aspects are visible in the following example. The situation in Baghdad has stabilised considerably since the civil war phase of years 2006–2008. The armed group calling itself the Islamic State (ISIS), which attacked Central Iraq, has not attempted to seize Baghdad. Its cells have, however, managed to conduct terror attacks, such as assassinations, kidnappings, and road- side bombings, around the Baghdad Governorate. (Landinfo 2015; Migri 2015; UNSC 2015a; Upper Tribunal 2015; Washington Institute 2015.) The high modality indicates that the decisions present the COI as an indisputable and objective fact, even though this is actually not the case, as has been argued by previous re- search (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Good 2004; Johannesson 2012; Gibb and Good 2013). Therefore the COI in the asylum decisions is constructed as illusions of objectivity, as it is presented as objective, yet in fact formed by choices of inclusion, exclusion, and reformulations. Based on the presented analysis, I suggest that COI has two different functions in the decisions referred to here as personal and general (see Table 2). While the types of preced- ing intertexts, form, and modality tend to be similar in both, the two functions are differ- entiated by the topics and the placement of the COI. The topics of personal COI are related to the applicant’s reasons for seeking asylum (e.g. ethnicity, religion, and work), the events narrated by them (e.g. threats, violence, and torture), and the reported persecu- tor (e.g. governmental actors and armed groups). The placement of personal COI is typic- ally in the facts section, which rephrases and assesses the persecution narrative of the applicant, and the COI paragraph tends to immediately follow the retelling of the narra- tive and be followed by the assessment of the Service of the truthfulness of the narrative. Therefore, personal COI is strictly connected to the persecution narrative of the asylum applicant and its assessment. In turn, the topics of general COI are not related to the applicant’s narrative but rather to their geographical background—their country and area of origin. They may include known events of violence, legislation as well as other societal developments. General COI can be placed either in the facts, judicial assessment, or the IFA section of the decision. It tends to be placed independently, meaning without a clear link to the preceding paragraph, and in clusters with other paragraphs of general COI. For instance, the excerpt above about the situation in Baghdad, can variably be placed after ei- ther in the facts (after denying the credibility of the applicant’s persecution narrative and therefore risk of future persecution); in the judicial assessment (after denying that the ap- plicant has well-founded grounds for asylum); or in relation to the internal ﬂight alterna- tive (after accepting that the applicant is in risk in their area of origin but assessing whether they can live somewhere else, in this case, Baghdad). The example is usually Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 9 Table 2. Personal and general COI in the asylum decisions Function Topic Form Placement Function Personal Related to the Repeated identi- In the facts sec- To help assess the applicant’s nar- cally only in tion, immedi- credibility of rative, for ex- decisions of ately following the persecution ample, reasons applicants with the retelling of narrative and and events of similar reasons the narrative the personal persecution, of persecution risk of persecutor or persecutor persecution General Related to place, Repeated identi- In the facts, judi- To help assess the that is, the cally in various cial assessment general risk and applicant’s decisions re- or IFA sections, whether the country or area gardless their independently area of origin of origin reasons of per- or clustered (or return, in secution or the with other gen- case of IFA) is persecutor eral COI safe enough to return followed by one or more paragraphs about the general situation in Baghdad. Therefore the function of personal COI is to assess whether the applicant’s persecution narrative is credible and whether as a consequence they are likely to face a personal risk of persecu- tion. In turn, the function of general COI is to assess—in the case, the personal risk of per- secution has not been found likely (see Dauvergne and Millbank 2003: 305; Affolter 2021: 85)—whether the applicant faces a general risk because of the security situation in the country of origin and therefore whether the country is safe enough to return. The latter refers speciﬁcally to looking at the levels of generalised violence and the humanitarian situation to determine whether the deportation of the applicant, despite the lack of accepted risk of personal persecution, would break the principle of non-refoulement. These two functions of COI will be examined further in the following subsections through case examples and the concepts of transformations, and the presence and absence, respectively. 5.1 General COI: transformations Transformations refer to the ways in which the contents of the text change from the pre- ceding intertext to the text (Fairclough 1992: 130–133; Farrelly 2020). To look at transfor- mations in general COI, I use the case of Baghdad as an example, because Baghdad represents a clear change that happened during the period covered by the data. In the be- ginning of the period, the Finnish Immigration Service considered the city of Baghdad too dangerous for anyone to return. The statement made by the Service—discussed in the beginning of the article—marked a change in this view, as according to them the security Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 10 E. BODSTROM situation had improved. The presupposition is that this change should also be visible be- tween the COI reports of the Country Information Service and between the COI in the decisions. Therefore, I ﬁrst look at transformations between the COI reports and then be- tween the COI in the decisions. In the COI reports, there is a clear transformation. During the period affecting the deci- sions in the data, the Country Information Service published two COI reports about Iraq, the ﬁrst in October 2015 and the second in May 2016. The Finnish Immigration Service made a statement about the improvement of the security situation following the second report. Both reports are based on desk research and include overall information about the security and humanitarian situation in the country, including a section about the Baghdad area. In the 2015 report, the section about Baghdad is approximately one page long and discusses security forces, terrorist and other violent attacks as well as everyday life. In the 2016 report, the section about Baghdad is considerably longer, over two pages, and discusses violent deaths and terrorist attacks as well as restaurants, beauty pageants, sports, and culture. Indeed based on the contents, there was not a substantial change in the security situation in Baghdad between the two reports; the May 2016 report states that ‘the security situation in Baghdad has not essentially changed within the recent months’ (Finnish Immigration Service 2016b, emphasis added). A transformation does, however, occur not in the information related to the security situation but in the topics covered in the reports. As can be seen in Table 3, whereas the 2015 report brieﬂy addresses everyday life in one paragraph (paragraph 4), the 2016 re- port extensively discusses it in altogether four paragraphs (paragraphs 8–10). Indeed, in Table 3. Topics in the 2015 and 2016 COI reports about Baghdad Paragraph 2015 report 2016 report 1 General information Demonstrations 2 Situation during previous Violent deaths civil war 3 Situation after the civil war Terrorist attacks 4 Security forces Terrorist attack victims 5 Terrorist attacks Terrorist attacks 6 Other violence Violent attacks 7 Everyday life Everyday life: restaurants 8 Situation on the Green Everyday life: beauty Zone pageants 9 Everyday life: sports and culture 10 Everyday life: restaurants 11 Conservative power struggle Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 11 the 2016 report, everyday life (restaurants, beauty pageants, and sports) are presented side-by-side with the security situation (violent attacks and their victims) and given al- most equal space. Dauvergne and Millbank (2003) suggest that this kind of approach to COI may be used to present the country of origin as safer than it actually is. They describe how, in the case of sexual minority asylum applicants in Australia, COI about existing gay clubs or cruising locations was included while COI about the risks and dangers related to such venues or behaviour was excluded. This may suggest that by emphasising the every- day life aspects and giving them almost equal space as the security situation, the 2016 re- port de-emphasises security threats in order to give a safer image of the area. In contrast, in the COI in the decisions, there is almost no visible transformation. In the beginning of the period, the COI about Baghdad includes four paragraphs, repeating almost word to word in all the decisions. Any changes are mainly superﬁcial, such as changing ‘in the neighbouring municipalities surrounding the city of Baghdad and their many towns and villages’ to ‘outside the city [of Baghdad] in the so called Baghdad Belt area’. The only signiﬁcant change is adding a ﬁfth paragraph discussing the growing num- ber of bomb attacks, indicating rather deterioration than improvement of the security situation. Indeed none of the decisions referred to the May 2016 report, meaning that even several months after the report had been published, the decisions still referred to its predecessor, the October 2015 report. The analysis of both the reports and the decisions indicates that there was actually no signiﬁcant change in the security situation in Baghdad. However, after the Finnish Immigration Service made its statement about the improvement of security, there was a considerable change in the position of Iraqi asylum seekers in Finland: whereas in the lat- ter half of 2015, approximately 60 per cent of them were granted international protection, in the summer of 2016, the percentage had dropped to 25 (Finnish Immigration Service 2022). If this was not explained by the improved security situation, what could explain it? A likely explanation is the changes made to the Finnish Aliens Act. That is, until May 2016, the Act included a category of humanitarian protection, which could be granted, among other things, if the person was unable to return home due to the weak security situation. Until May 2016, Baghdad was considered one of such areas, and people origi- nating from Baghdad were therefore granted at least humanitarian protection. After the category was removed from the law, they were no longer entitled to protection (asylum or subsidiary protection, both included in the 25 per cent above) but were instead rejected. This was not considered a breach of the non-refoulement principle, since the coverage of humanitarian protection had been wider than strictly required by international agree- ments and since the applicants fulﬁlling the criteria of non-refoulement could technically be granted subsidiary protection instead (Proposal of the Government 2016). Therefore I suggest that the statement of the Service about the improvement of security in Baghdad was not a matter of fact but rather an example of the symbolic use of COI. This means, following Rosset, Liodden and Maia (2015), using COI for public policy pub- licity in order to deter and discourage asylum-seekers from seeking protection rather than describing the actual situation in the country of origin. They describe how—very similar to the Finnish Immigration Service—the Ministry of Justice of Denmark in 2014 pub- lished a press release stating that it would become more difﬁcult for Eritreans to get asy- lum, only to be later shown that the statement was based on incomplete and selective Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 12 E. BODSTROM information. Even though there are differences between the two cases, they both can point to the possible drawbacks of government-produced COI: as governments are not inde- pendent parties in asylum matters, the information produced by them may not be un- biased (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003: 313). 5.2 General COI: presence and absence This section looks at the presence and absence (see Farrelly 2020) of general COI. This refers to the way the information in the COI reports is recontextualised in the decisions and speciﬁcally what parts of them are selected to be presented and how (Linell 1998). Here I discuss the case of Afghanistan, as it provides a clear example of the presence and absence. It also shows a contradiction to the previous example of Baghdad, as COI about Afghanistan usually concentrates on the country as a whole rather than its cities or prov- inces. I start by looking at the presence and the absence of the decisions vis-a `-vis their pre- ceding intertexts, and then focus on one particular case of recontextualisation between the intertexts related to the internal ﬂight alternative. The decisions typically dedicate four paragraphs to the general COI about Afghanistan and thoroughly discuss the security situation, describing it as ‘ﬂuctuating’. The conﬂict in Afghanistan presents wide geographical and temporal ﬂuctuations. In 2015, the conﬂict claimed over 11,000 civilian casualties (including those injured), which is 4 per cent more than in 2014 and the highest number since 2009. Still the number of civilian deaths decreased a bit from the previous year. The information about the conﬂict and its casualties are indeed discussed in many COI reports, and the decisions make this present. The information is essential since an asylum-seeker cannot be deported if there is reason to believe they would be in serious danger upon return. However, the COI sources used in the decisions do not state that the security situation is ﬂuctuating, but that it is deteriorating. This is an essential difference of recontextualisation between the texts and the intertexts since ﬂuctuation indicates that al- though the security situation is sometimes deteriorating, sometimes it is improving. For example, the preceding intertext for the example above, a COI report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA 2016: 1), describes the situation as follows. In 2015, the conﬂict in Afghanistan continued to cause extreme harm to the civil- ian population, with the highest number of total civilian casualties recorded by UNAMA since 2009. Following increases in 2013 and 2014, civilian deaths and injuries from conﬂict-related violence increased by 4 per cent compared with 2014. Between 1 January and 31 December 2015, UNAMA documented 11,002 ci- vilian casualties (3,545 civilian deaths and 7,457 injured), marking a 4 per cent decrease in civilian deaths and a 9 per cent increase in civilians injured. The decision starts by describing the situation in Afghanistan as ﬂuctuating, whereas UNAMA describes it as continuing to cause ‘extreme harm’. In the following clause, the decision states the number of civilian casualties, their increase as well as this being at its highest for about ﬁve years. These same facts are found in the following clauses of the Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 13 UNAMA report, although UNAMA also mentions that the number of civilian casualties has continued to rise the third year in a row—something left unmentioned by the deci- sion. The decision concludes by emphasising that civilian deaths have decreased. This in- formation is also found in the UNAMA report but, unlike the decision, UNAMA also states that the number of civilians injured has instead increased. By these small changes— talking about ﬂuctuation rather than deterioration and emphasising the decrease in civil- ian deaths while overlooking the increase of those injured—the decisions recontextualise the situation in Afghanistan to seem less grave than what it is according to the intertexts. Indeed, in many of the texts in the intertextual chain, the deterioration of the security situation is one of their key messages. This is indicated by placement, that is placing the information right in the beginning of the report or in the executive summary. This also constructs one of the main absences found in the data. That is, even though the security situation plays a key role in the COI reports, the decisions do not necessarily use them to discuss it, but instead use them to describe health care or the judicial system, for example. In practice, this means that the reports are named and listed as references in the decision, but their central message is left absent. This is what Farrelly (2020) has referred to as nam- ing texts. According to him, naming can be an attempt to acknowledge the source of in- formation, to show that it has been included and used, without actually including the main message of the source—in the current case, the deterioration of the security situation. Similar play between the presence and absence can also be found between the preceding intertexts and their development over time. This is especially visible in the internal ﬂight guidelines of the Finnish Immigration Service, which are separate from but based on the guidelines of the UNHCR. As the Service (2018) has stated: they closely follow the guide- line of the UNHCR. There seems to, however, be a clear difference between the UNHCR guideline and the recontextualisation of the Service (see Table 4). In 2016, the Service considered the internal ﬂight alternative to be generally available to Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. However, at the same time, UNHCR considered IFA to be available to Kabul only for people with a support network or, without a support network, for single able- bodied men and married couples of working age. In practice, this means that the require- ments for IFA were much more strict according to the UNHCR than to the Service. Furthermore, when UNHCR updated its guideline in 2018, the relationship between the guidelines remained similar: whereas UNHCR stated that IFA was generally not available in Kabul any more, the Service instead posited that IFA was available with a support net- work for married couples or without it for single able-bodied men. This indicates that the Service is selective in its recontextualisation of the UNHCR guideline, making certain aspects present and others absent and consequently ending up with a distinctively differ- ent perspective on the plausibility of IFA in Kabul. 5.3 Personal COI: presence and absence Personal COI refers to the information that is directly related to the applicant’s narrative and reasons of persecution. The most prominent feature of personal COI in the data is its relational absence. That is, the decisions typically include far less personal than general COI, with altogether 12 decisions entailing no personal COI at all. The absence of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 14 E. BODSTROM Table 4. Internal ﬂight to Kabul by the Finnish Immigration Service and UNHCR Year UNHCR guideline Finnish Immigration Service guideline 2016 IFA available: with a support network IFA available with or without a sup- or without a support network in the port network case of single able-bodied men and married couples of working age 2018 IFA not generally available (regardless IFA available: with a support net- of support network) work in the case of married cou- ples or without a support network in the case of single able- bodied men personal COI manifests in two ways: either by excluding COI related to the personal situ- ation of the applicant altogether or by presenting general COI as personal COI. A poignant example of the complete absence of personal COI is a decision related to a reported blood feud in Afghanistan. Blood feuds can be deﬁned as members of a family killing members of another family in retaliatory acts of vengeance, often triggered by mur- ders of a member of one family committed by a member of the other (UNHCR 2016: 78– 79). Personal COI is typically placed immediately after retelling of the persecution narra- tive to which it is linked, and before the assessment of credibility by the decision maker. In the example, the decision retells what the applicant has told about the blood feud, but instead of continuing with COI, the decision moves directly into the assessment, which reads as follows. The Immigration Service views that it is possible that your brother was shot in [month year]. The Immigration Service does not however think it is credible that a family that has moved far away from your home village and that has not had anything to do with your family for four years had shot your brother. The Immigration Service views that possible revenge would have been done earlier than four years after your father and [the member of the other family] were killed. The decision concludes that they do not view it credible that the blood feud would have taken place as the applicant has told. As the main reason, the decision states that the act of vengeance took place four years after the original events. Since the decision does not in- clude any COI about blood feuds, it is not possible to assess what the claim is based on. Indeed available COI about blood feuds in Afghanistan clearly contradicts the argument of the decision as, according to the UNHCR (2016: 78–79) for example, if retaliation is not possible immediately, the blood feud may reactivate after years or even decades after the original events. According to research literature, these kinds of arguments are not rare in asylum decisions. Indeed Johannesson (2012) has found that asylum decisions tend to reﬂect the personal assumptions of the decision maker. That is, when assessing the way Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 15 certain kinds of people would behave, this is more often based on the assumptions of the decision maker than the available COI. This is something that Pettitt, Townhead and Huber (2008) have named speculative argumentation, meaning that the decision maker attempts to read the mind of a third party, in the current case the other party of the blood feud. More particularly, Sweeney (2007, see also Liodden 2022) has referred to the idea of a ‘reasonable persecutor’, in which the decision maker argues that a reasonable persecutor would not act in the way described by the applicant, and consequently, the applicant’s narrative must be false. However, as Sweeney points out, this argument tends to be based not on facts but on the decision maker’s assumptions on how the persecutor could have executed the acts of persecution better. These assumptions and even contradictions high- light the relevance of personal COI in asylum assessment and also the possible problems related to its absence. Absence through using general COI as personal COI is visible in an example made for an applicant from Baghdad, reportedly being a target of a bomb attack approximately ﬁve years earlier. In the decision, the retelling of the applicant’s narrative about the attack is followed by a paragraph of COI, which is in turn followed by the assessment of credibility by the decision maker. The placement of the COI indicates that the COI is used as a per- sonal COI as it follows the recounting of the narrative and is used to argue against the credibility of the applicant. Considering also the country information above, the Immigration Service does not accept it as a fact that the bomb was targeted at you but views that the blast has been a consequence of the bad security situation of the area at the time. However, the content of the COI paragraph ‘above’ is one of the paragraphs used as general COI in almost all the decisions made for Baghdadis, describing the security situ- ation in the city at the time the decision was written. As the events narrated by the appli- cant took place ﬁve years earlier, and the COI describes the current situation, the COI is not actually related to the narrative of the applicant. Therefore even though the placement of the COI indicates that it is used to assess the applicant’s narrative of persecution, the information provided by the COI is not actually relevant to this. Therefore, personal COI—that is, COI relevant to the applicant’s persecution narrative—is in actuality absent in the decision. In general, the absence of personal COI may be due to time limitations, which may encourage or force the decision makers to use the minimum number of COI (Pettitt, Townhead and Huber 2008). Even though it may be difﬁcult to ﬁnd COI that would directly link to the individual claim, the analysis shows that the lack of personal COI is not only because of this, since there is a variety of personal COI between very simi- lar decisions. For instance, even though the example above about a blood feud lacked any COI about blood feuds, other similar decisions included COI about the topic. The current example, in turn, presents a disconnection between the applicant’s narrative and the use of COI because the credibility of the applicant’s narrative is assessed based on COI irrele- vant to their narrative. As the same COI is repeated in verbatim in other decisions to pro- vide general information, it is likely that the COI paragraph has been copy–pasted to the decision and used despite the lack of connection between the narrative of the applicant and the content of the COI. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 16 E. BODSTROM 5.4 Personal COI: transformations Large and signiﬁcant transformations in COI, including personal COI, are scarce in the decisions. This already became apparent in the lack of transformations related to the gen- eral COI about Baghdad, as discussed earlier. The data do, however, include one excep- tion where the transformation of personal COI is loud and clear: the personal COI related to apostasy, meaning giving up Islam, in Iran. The data include two decisions where such COI is included, and there is a very clear distinction between them. In the decision made chronologically ﬁrst, the COI paragraph is as follows. Giving up Islam aka apostasy has not been written in the Penal Code of Iran, but it is still possible to sentence for apostasy based on the Constitution. Paragraph 167 of the Constitution states that in the absence of written law the judge must rely on the principles of Islamic law. Paragraph 220 of the Penal Code conﬁrms this (Constitution of Iran 1979, p. 167: Penal Code of Iran 2013, p. 220, IHRDC 2014). There has been no perceivable improvement in the situation of Christians during the term of President Hassan Rouhani. The most typical encroachments against Christians have been arrests, prison sentences, and criminal sentences. The arrests have targeted especially pastors who organise unofﬁcial home church activities and conduct missionary work (ICHRI 2013; DIS 2014). The example presents four statements. Firstly, it is possible to convict for apostasy in Iran. Secondly, there has been no improvement in the situation of Christians since the in- auguration of the new president considered more progressive in 2013. Thirdly, Christians face arrests as well as imprisonment and criminal sentences. Fourthly, that especially pas- tors but also other Christians can face encroachments. This inclusion of other Christians is indicated by the use of the word ‘especially’, implying that particularly but not only priests face encroachment. This interpretation is conﬁrmed by the COI reports used as sources in the paragraph, as they clearly indicate that also regular Christians may face ar- rest or harassment (e.g. DIS 2014). The second decision, made a few months later, shares the ﬁrst three sentences of the previous example, but then the paragraph continues: The only person to have been executed for converting to Christianity is pastor Hosein Soodmand of the Jama’at Rabbani congregation, who was hanged in Mashhad in 1990. After Soodmand, the only apostasy sentences conﬁrmed by the appellate organ have been given to Mehdi Dijab in 1994 and Yusef Nadarkhani in 2010. The sentence of Nadarkhani was however later changed to sentence for endangering public safety, more typical for Christian converts, and Nadarkhani was released after three years in imprisonment. (CSW 2016, DIS, Landinfo and DRC 2013, ICHRI 2013, IHRDC 2014) The second example shares the ﬁrst fact of the ﬁrst example: conviction for apostasy is possible according to the law. However, the following statements are very different. According to them, only one person ever has been executed for apostasy, and two more have been given a sentence, but one of them has since been released. This would in essence Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 17 Table 5. COI intertexts about apostasy in Iran Example 1 Example 2 Coherent intertexts Constitution of Iran 1979 Constitution of Iran 1979 Penal Code of Iran 2013 Penal Code of Iran 2013 ICHRI 2013 ICHRI 2013 IHRDC 2014 IHRDC 2014 Transformed intertexts DIS 2014 DIS, Landinfo and DRC 2013 CSW 2013 indicate that apostasy does not cause problems in Iran, as only three people have been convicted for it. The reason for this transformation within a span of a few months is unclear. No new signiﬁcant COI reports were published nor are such referenced in the later decision. The analysis indicates that there are three intertextual factors to the change: a change of an intertext, shifting the focus of the texts, and the absence and presence of information be- tween the intertext and text. Both examples refer mainly to the same sources of informa- tion, as can be seen in Table 5. Yet, there is one signiﬁcant change of intertext: the ﬁrst decision refers to a 2014 report by the Danish Immigration Service (DIS), but the second decision instead refers to an older 2013 report published jointly by DIS, The Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre (Landinfo) and Danish Refugee Council (DRC). In comparison to the other quoted reports, the added 2013 report is quite different in its content. That is, all the other reports clearly indicate that even though ethnic or born Christians may not be persecuted in Iran, Christian converts are. However, the 2013 re- port does not make this distinction, instead is collectively referred to as ‘Iranian Christians’ or ‘Christians in Iran’. For this reason also the conclusion of the report is more ambiguous than the conclusion of the other reports: according to the 2013 report, some sources say Christians are persecuted, while others say they are not. Essentially add- ing this source in the more recent decision allows the COI to argue that not all Christians are persecuted in Iran, but without explaining the difference between the situation of eth- nic Christians and Christian converts. Shifting the focus is visible between the COI paragraphs in the decisions. Whereas the ﬁrst example talks about a wide array of persecution—arrests as well as prison and crim- inal sentences—faced by Christians, the second discusses only apostasy sentences. This implies a presupposition that only those who are ofﬁcially convicted of apostasy are in fact persecuted for their religion. This ties in with the absence and presence of information, as in the second example the decision uses the lack of sentences for apostasy to indicate that those who have given up Islam do not face persecution in Iran. This is not untrue in itself, as is revealed by the COI reports. However, what the reports tell is that the lack of convic- tions for apostasy sentences is not because there would be no persecution, but because Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 18 E. BODSTROM Iran is using political sentences such as spying or endangering public safety rather than the religious sentence of apostasy to convict converts (e.g. DIS 2014: 7–8). This explana- tory information is, however, absent from the decision, therefore, creating an illusion that Christian converts would not be persecuted even though the COI reports state the contrary. 6. Conclusion The article started from the presupposition that COI is by its nature intertextual. Through analysing the intertextuality of COI it argues that COI has two functions in asy- lum decisions: general and personal. General COI refers to information about the security and human rights situation in the country or speciﬁc area, whereas personal COI is related to the applicant’s reasons and narrative of persecution. Furthermore, the article has shown how transformations as well as presence and absence can be used to recontex- tualise COI so that certain areas can seem less dangerous and certain reasons for persecu- tion less likely. Although COI is by its very nature not objective (Gibb and Good 2013), the decisions nevertheless portray it as if it was objective; as fact-like and without a hint of uncertainty or contradictions, even though it can easily be biased, irrelevant and even il- logical, as shown in the analysis. Therefore, the COI in the decisions is not objective but forms an illusion of objectivity. The question of illusions is important because legality does not automatically mean legitimacy (Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 205–206). That is, the data are composed of legal decisions meeting the requirements of the law, but the analysis implies that their legitimacy may be put to question, as the justiﬁcations of the legality are less than robust. The idea of objectivity, therefore, aims at legitimising the legality of the decisions, but the idea of illusions contests this. This means that even though the asylum decisions may be legal—and may have even been conﬁrmed as such at the appeal organs—they may nevertheless lack legitimacy. This article has mainly addressed manifest intertextuality, but COI is also a matter of interdiscursivity. According to European Asylum Support Ofﬁce EASO (2019), COI should be fact based and unbiased, aim for objectivity, be relevant to the matter, as well as logically and factually sound. The current analysis shows that this is not always the case with COI in the asylum decisions. Quite the contrary, the COI in the decisions may be se- lectively chosen to create a bias, lack relevancy to the matter in question, and also create logical fallacies in the asylum assessment. Therefore, the COI in the decisions does not seem to draw from the aim of objectivity and impartiality, but rather from a different genre, that of knowledge politics of COI (van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019), wherein its function is not to inform asylum decision making but to send a public mes- sage about the local asylum politics to current and prospective asylum applicants. As such the themes of the article are not only related to forced migration but also to the wider dis- cussions about human migrations and the attitudes and public policies related to them and, discursively, the importance of recontextualisation in ofﬁcial documents and regimes of border control. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 19 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank all the people who shared their asylum documents and helped to collect them, as well as the Deportation and Resistance workshop participants of the Nordic Migration Research (NMR) Conference and ETMU Conference at the University of Helsinki in 2021. Funding This work was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation [00210242]. Conﬂict of interest statement. The author has worked and volunteered in organisations assisting asylum applicants in their asylum procedures. Note 1. The translations from the original Finnish language material have been made by the researcher. References Affolter, L. (2021) Asylum Matters, on the Front Line of Administrative Decision-Making. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan. Aliens Act of Finland. (2004) <http://www.ﬁnlex.ﬁ> accessed 1 Dec 2021. Bednar, N. R. (2015) ‘Social Group Semantics: The Evidentiary Requirements of “Particularity” and “Social Distinction” in Pro Se Asylum Adjudications’, Minnesota Law Review, 100/1: 255–404. Bennett, S. (2018) Constructions of Migrant Integration in British Public Discourse: Becoming British. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bernstein, B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge. Bodstro ¨ m, E. (2020) ‘Because Migri Says So”: Legitimation in Negative Asylum Decisions in Finland’, Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 10/2: 5–19. Dauvergne, C. and Millbank, J. (2003) ‘Burdened by Proof: How the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal Has Failed Lesbian and Gay Asylum Seekers’, Federal Law Review, 31/2: 299–342. DIS. (2014) Update on the Situation for Christian Converts in Iran. Repot from the Damish Immigration Service’s Fact-ﬁnding Mission to Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey and London < https://www.refworld.org/docid/53b650394.html> accessed 6 Jun 2020. Eurostat. (2022) Asylum Applicants by Type of Applicant, Citizenship, Age and Sex – Annual Aggregated Data (Rounded) <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ MIGR_ASYAPPCTZA/default/table?lang=en&category=migr.migr_asy.migr_asyapp> accessed 23 May 2022. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 20 E. BODSTROM European Asylum Support Ofﬁce EASO. (2019) Country of Origin Information (COI) Report Methodology <https://coi.easo.europa.eu/administration/easo/Plib/2019_ EASO_COI_Report_Methodology.pdf> accessed 29 Jan 2021. Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. — — — (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Farrelly, M. (2020) ‘Rethinking Intertextuality in CDA’, Critical Discourse Studies, 17/4: 359–76. Finnish Immigration Service. (2016a) Humanitarian Protection no Longer Granted; New Guidelines Issued for Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia <https://migri.ﬁ/en/-/humanitaar ista-suojelua-ei-myonneta-enaa-uudet-maalinjaukset-afganistanista-irakista-ja-somaliasta> accessed 18 Dec 2020. ———. (2016b) Irakin Tilanne Huhtikuussa 2016 <https://migri.ﬁ/documents/5202425/ 5914056/68619_Irakin_tilanne_2.5.2016.pdf/27df2976-2bd4-401f-b65c-2fa58f5ce362/ 68619_Irakin_tilanne_2.5.2016.pdf> accessed 18 Dec 2020. ———. (2018) The Finnish Immigration Service has updated its guidelines on Afghanistan <https://migri.ﬁ/en/-/maahanmuuttoviraston-afganistan-linjaus-on-paivitetty> accessed 10 Jan 2021. ———. (2022) Statistics. International protection. Decisions 7/2015–8/2016. <https://tilas tot.migri.ﬁ/#decisions/23330?l=en&start=546&end=559> accessed 7 Mar 2022. Gibb, R. and Good, A. (2013) ‘Do the Facts Speak for Themselves? Country of Origin Information in French and British Refugee Status Determination Procedures’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 25/2: 291–322. Good, A. (2004) ‘Undoubtedly an Expert”? Anthropologists in British Asylum Courts’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10/1: 113–33. Johannesson, L. (2012) ‘Performing Credibility: Assessments of Asylum Claims in Swedish Migration Courts’, Retfaerd Argang, 35/3: 69–84. van der Kist, J., Dijstelbloem, H. and de Goede, M. (2019) ‘In the Shadow of Asylum Decision-Making: The Knowledge Politics of Country-of-Origin’, International Political Sociology, 13/1: 68–85. Van der Kist, J. and Rosset, D. (2020) ‘Knowledge and Legitimacy in Asylum Decision-Making: The Politics of Country of Origin Information’, Citizenship Studies, 24/5: 663–79. Linell, P. (1998) ‘Discourse across Boundaries: On Recontextualizations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse’, Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18/2: 143–57. Liodden, T. M. (2022) ‘The Map and the Territory: The Use of Country Information in Asylum Assessments’, International Migration Review, 56/1: 296–322. Pettitt, J., Townhead, L. and Huber, S. (2008) ‘The Use of COI in the Refugee Status Determination Process in the UK: Looking Back, Reaching Forward’, Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 25/2: 182–94. Proposal of the Government of Finland. (2016). Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge. Rosset, D. (2021) ‘We Have Our Own Kitchen”: Distance et Le ´ gitimite ´ Dans la Production de Savoir Pour la Proce ´ dure D’Asile’, Politique et Socie ´te ´s, 38/1: 49–69. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 21 — — — and Achermann, C. (2019) ‘Negotiating Research in the Shadow of Migration Control: Access, Knowledge and Cognitive Authority’, Social Anthropology, 27/Suppl 1: 49–67. — — —, Liodden, T. and Maia (2015) ‘The Eritrea Report: Symbolic Uses of Expert Information in Asylum Politics’, Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 5/1: 26–32. Rousseau, C. (2002) ‘The Complexity of Determining Refugeehood: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Decision-Making Process of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 15/1: 43–70. Schittenhelm, K. and Schneider, S. (2017) ‘Ofﬁcial Standards and Local Knowledge in Asylum Procedures: Decision-Making in Germany’s Asylum System’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43/10: 1696–713. Schultz, J. (2019) ‘The Internal Protection Alternative and its Relation to Refugee Status’, in Singh Juss, S. (ed.) Research Handbook on International Refugee Law, pp. 126–38. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Staffans, I. (2012) Evidence in European Asylum Procedures. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Sweeney, J. A. (2007) ‘The “Lure” of Facts in Asylum Appeals: Critiquing the Practice of Judges,’ in Smith, S. R. (ed.) Applying Theory to Policy and Practice: Issues for Critical Reﬂection, pp. 19–35. Hampshire: Ashgate. Tiilila ¨, U. (2000) ‘Tapaus pa ¨iva ¨hoitopa ¨a ¨to ¨ s’, in Heikkinen, V., Hiidenmaa, P. and Tiilila ¨, U. (eds) Teksti Tyo ¨na ¨, Virka Kielena ¨, pp. 215–66. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. UNAMA. (2016) Afghanistan. Annual Report 2015. Protection of Civilians in Armed Conﬂict <https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-annual-report-2015-pro tection-civilians-armed-conﬂict-february-2016> accessed 10 Jan 2021. UNHCR. (2016) Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Afghanistan <https://www.refworld.org/docid/570f96564.html> accessed 10 Jan 2021. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Migration Studies Oxford University Press http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/illusions-of-objectivity-the-two-functions-of-country-of-origin-4QGpgHosbq

Loading next page...

References (17)

J. Van der Kist, D. Rosset (2020)
Knowledge and Legitimacy in Asylum Decision-Making: The Politics of Country of Origin Information
Citizenship Studies, 24
R. Gibb, A. Good (2013)
Do the Facts Speak for Themselves? Country of Origin Information in French and British Refugee Status Determination Procedures
International Journal of Refugee Law, 25
A. Good (2004)
Undoubtedly an Expert?? Anthropologists in British Asylum Courts
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10
C. Rousseau (2002)
The Complexity of Determining Refugeehood: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Decision-Making Process of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board
Journal of Refugee Studies, 15
D. Rosset (2021)
We Have Our Own Kitchen?: Distance et L�gitimit� Dans la Production de Savoir Pour la Proc�dure D?Asile
Politique et Sociétés, 38
T. M. Liodden (2022)
The Map and the Territory: The Use of Country Information in Asylum Assessments
International Migration Review, 56
D. Rosset, C. Achermann (2019)
Negotiating Research in the Shadow of Migration Control: Access, Knowledge and Cognitive Authority
Social Anthropology, 27
P. Linell (1998)
Discourse across Boundaries: On Recontextualizations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse
Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18
M. Farrelly (2020)
Rethinking Intertextuality in CDA
Critical Discourse Studies, 17
E. Bodström (2020)
Because Migri Says So?: Legitimation in Negative Asylum Decisions in Finland
Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 10
N. R. Bednar (2015)
Social Group Semantics: The Evidentiary Requirements of ?Particularity? and ?Social Distinction? in Pro Se Asylum Adjudications
Minnesota Law Review, 100
L. Johannesson (2012)
Performing Credibility: Assessments of Asylum Claims in Swedish Migration Courts
Retfaerd Årgang, 35
K. Schittenhelm, S. Schneider (2017)
Official Standards and Local Knowledge in Asylum Procedures: Decision-Making in Germany?s Asylum System
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43
J. van der Kist, H. Dijstelbloem, M. de Goede (2019)
In the Shadow of Asylum Decision-Making: The Knowledge Politics of Country-of-Origin
International Political Sociology, 13
J. Pettitt, L. Townhead, S. Huber (2008)
The Use of COI in the Refugee Status Determination Process in the UK: Looking Back, Reaching Forward
Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 25
D. Rosset, T. Liodden, Maia (2015)
The Eritrea Report: Symbolic Uses of Expert Information in Asylum Politics
Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 5
C. Dauvergne, J. Millbank (2003)
Burdened by Proof: How the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal Has Failed Lesbian and Gay Asylum Seekers
Federal Law Review, 31

Publisher: Oxford University Press
Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.
ISSN: 2049-5838
eISSN: 2049-5846
DOI: 10.1093/migration/mnac033
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The article argues that the intertextuality of country of origin information (COI) plays a signiﬁcant part in constructing asylum decisions and therefore the lives and futures of those affected by forced migration. COI in asylum decisions is based on COI reports, which in turn are based on other COI reports, interviews, or media materials. This makes them intertextual, that is, referring to and transforming other texts. That is, COI reports typically include dozens or even hundreds of pages of in- formation, which are abbreviated in order to be used in a few paragraphs of asylum decisions. This is done through recontextualisation, that is, by selecting certain parts of the text and reformulating them to the new context. The article analyses COI in 67 negative ﬁrst-instance asylum decisions and in 38 COI reports and similar sources through the concept of intertextuality. It argues that COI has two functions in the asylum decisions, personal and general. Personal COI is used to assess the truthful- ness of the asylum applicant’s persecution narrative, whereas general COI is used to evaluate the overall security and human rights situation in the country of origin. The article shows that even though the decisions tend to present COI as objective information, it can easily be biased, irrelevant, and illogical, therefore creating an il- lusion of objectivity. Keywords: forced migration, country of origin information, COI, asylum decisions, intertextuality 1. Introduction A statement made by the Finnish Immigration Service in May 2016 aroused international attention. According to the Service (2016a), the safety situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia had improved; therefore it would become more difﬁcult for citizens of the said countries to receive international protection in Finland. More precisely the Service stated https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnac033 V C The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creati- vecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 2 E. BODSTROM that the countries no longer had geographical areas to which a person could not be safely deported. At the time ISIS governed notable parts of Iraq, including the city of Mosul, yet the statement implied that even Mosul was a safe place to return. The announcement was made in the aftermath of Finland, along with the rest of Europe, receiving an increased number of asylum applicants. Unlike in the European Union, in Finland Syrians were only the fourth largest group of asylum applicants after citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia (Eurostat 2022). While the European states mainly welcomed Syrians, they at the same time became more restrictive to asylum seekers from other countries. The statement of the Finnish Immigration Service should perhaps therefore not be looked at as an ob- jective fact, but rather as knowledge politics (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019) in the ‘race to the bottom’ to make Finland more unattractive for migrants, as was done by various European states at the time (Rosset and Achermann 2019). As such, the change in policy can be interpreted as an example of the symbolic use of country of origin information (COI), that is, such information is used not only to inform about the country of origin but also about the asylum politics of the country of destination (Rosset, Liodden, and Maia 2015). Seeking asylum is a strain of human migration that has become widely mediatised and politicised in debates. COI plays an important part in asylum decision making and has seen an increased research interest in recent years, although the total number of studies remains fairly small. COI has mainly been approached through the perspective of legal studies (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Gibb and Good 2013; Bednar 2015) and social an- thropology (Good 2004; Affolter 2021; Rosset 2021), but also through studies of politics (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019) and public administration (Johannesson 2012). It has also been approached from the perspective of knowledge production (Good 2004; Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019; Van der Kist and Rosset 2020; Rosset 2021) and usage by the decision makers (Affolter 2021; Liodden 2022) in the deci- sion documents (Rousseau 2002; Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Pettitt, Townhead, and Huber 2008; Johannesson 2012; Liodden 2022). COI exists, in essence, in the form of texts, yet it has not really been studied as such. Still understanding how country informa- tion takes shape and transforms from document to document is important in under- standing what kind of an effect it can have on asylum decision making. The article analyses COI as illusions of objectivity, that is, it presupposes that COI is often presented and understood as objective, but is actually not objective by nature (Gibb and Good 2013). Rather, formed by choosing from and recontextualising intertwined texts, COI is inherently intertextual (see Fairclough 1992; Reisigl and Wodak 2001; Farrelly 2020). The question the current article aims to answer is: how is COI intertextual- ly constructed in asylum decisions? The article shows how the intertextual choices related to COI can affect the asylum assessment and how the COI in the asylum decisions can be contradictory with the COI reports it is based on. The article contributes to the growing literature about the knowledge politics of COI and therefore, on a wider scale, to studies about asylum and migration. As Bennett (2018: 95–101) has shown, migration policy texts are discursively connected to other phenomena, such a concepts, legislation, and political discourses. Therefore, the article also contributes to understanding the links in asylum decision making to the migration political restrictions made after the increased in- ﬂux of asylum applicants. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 3 2. COI in asylum assessment COI is an essential part of asylum decision making (Pettitt, Townhead and Huber 2008; Gibb and Good 2013), as the applicant’s country of origin forms the basis of asylum as- sessment (Schittenhelm and Schneider 2017). In general, COI describes and estimates the security situation, political rights, and rights of minority groups, access to services such as housing and healthcare, as well as risk proﬁles and possible agents of persecution. The COI reports are usually gathered and produced by a specialised branch within the national asylum institutions albeit one that is detached from the decision-making unit (Rosset and Achermann 2019). This is also the case with the national focus of this article, Finland, where COI is produced by a specialised unit within the ﬁrst instance decision-making in- stitution, namely the Country Information Service (Maatietopalvelu) of the Finnish Immigration Service. The asylum decisions are made by the Asylum Unit (Turvapaikkayksikko ¨), and the Country Information Service supports the decision making by compiling reports about the security and overall situation in selected countries as well as of the selected groups (e.g. women, children, and political and religious groups), pos- sible reasons of asylum (forced recruitment and tribal practices) and armed groups. They are also responsible for updating the COI database and providing information for speciﬁc queries by the decision makers. The information provided by the Country Information Service is used by the decision makers of the Finnish Immigration Service as well as the appeal organs (Staffans 2012: 152) which emphasises the important role of COI, as the same information is used at all levels of the process and is therefore not independently tested at the appeal stage. COI can refer to both COI reports and the COI presented as part of an asylum decision, the latter typically being based on the former. In practice, the COI reports are papers of dozens or even over a hundred pages in length detailing the situation in a given country. The themes they include vary from geographical details and human rights legislation to the situation of minorities and religious and ethnic groups, treatment of political dissi- dents, and conditions of living (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem and de Goede 2019). The reports can discuss the situation overall or concentrate on speciﬁc issues: for example the situation of religious converts, certain political groups, or practices related to sexuality and gender. They can be based on ﬁeldwork or desk research, and desk research can in turn be based on other reports by various immigration services, human rights organisa- tions, experts, and the media (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Good 2004; Gibb and Good 2013). The COI in the asylum decisions is based on the COI reports, with the decisions cutting dozens or hundreds of pages of information into just a few paragraphs. In the decisions, COI is used to assess the country of origin of the applicant (i.e. whether they are from the country they say they are), the applicant’s persecution narrative (i.e. how possible and likely it is that the events told by the applicant would happen in the said country), the be- haviour of the applicant (Affolter 2021), and speciﬁcally the future risk of persecution. Therefore, the COI in the decisions is speciﬁcally related to the country of origin of the applicant and their persecution narrative, that is, the reason, events, and agents of perse- cution. Using shared COI increases the consistency and efﬁciency of decision making, as otherwise the decision maker should conduct fact ﬁnding independently for each asylum Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 4 E. BODSTROM applicant (Bednar 2015). However, because of its repetitive nature, if done poorly, it can also cause harm to a number of asylum applicants (Bednar 2015). In asylum decision making, COI tends to be taken as objective evidence (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Johannesson 2012; Gibb and Good 2013), but as Gibb and Good (2013) argue it cannot in actuality be ‘objective’ because the knowledge production of COI is interpretative by nature. The assumption of objectivity means that COI is taken as ‘an unquestionable truth’ by decision makers, a truth that easily overrides the narrative of the applicant if they are in contradiction (Sweeney 2007; Johannesson 2012; Liodden 2022). For example, if a man was to claim in his narrative that he is facing a threat because of having an extramarital affair, the decision can simply override the narrative based on COI stating that such threat is mainly aimed at women (Johannesson 2012; Bodstro ¨m 2020). Here the COI is therefore treated as ‘the unquestionable truth’ and as a more reli- able information source than the applicant, even though it is actually based on various decisions and interpretations about, for example, which topics are addressed in COI and which sources and parts of them are selected to be used in the COI reports or asylum deci- sions (see Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem and de Goede 2019). Therefore, the non-objectivity of COI is by default also a matter of intertextuality. 3. Intertextuality of COI Intertextuality refers to how texts ‘can transform prior texts and restructure existing con- ventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones’ (Fairclough 1992: 102) and how they link ‘to other texts (explicitly, implicitly, by referring to them or incorporating elements of them)’ (Farrelly 2020: 359). According to Reisigl and Wodak (2001: 37), the texts there- fore ‘cross between ﬁelds, overlap, refer to each other or are in some other way socio- functionally linked with each other’. As COI is essentially formed by referring to other texts and is therefore ‘self-referential’ (Van der Kist, Dijstelbloem and de Goede 2019: 75), it is always intertextual. With its various stages of reference, COI forms intertextual chains (Fairclough 2003: 130) or networks of intertexts (Farrelly 2020), with various sources and documents build- ing on one another. If we take the asylum decision as a starting point, the decision usually includes references to COI. In Farrelly’s (2020) terms, the asylum decision is the text, and the COI sources are its preceding intertexts. This is the ﬁrst link in the chain—the link be- tween the asylum decision and its sources. However, usually, the COI reports are based on other sources, be it other reports, interviews, or media texts. These form the preceding intertexts for the COI report, the second link in the chain (see Figure 1). And in case they are also based on other sources, their sources form further links in the chain. Every time a new link is created, the preceding text in the intertextual chain needs to be paraphrased to ﬁt in a new environment and purpose, that is, it needs to be recontextual- ised, a term coined by Bernstein (1990). For example, media texts are usually produced for the purpose of public awareness, not for the purpose of asylum assessment, but media content can be changed and repurposed to be used as COI, that is, to give information particularly about the situation in the country. Similarly, the dozens of pages of the COI reports need to be repurposed to serve the asylum decision, which typically only includes Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 5 Figure 1. The intertextual chain of COI in asylum decisions. a few paragraphs of COI. This is done by selecting certain parts of the text, giving them a new purpose, and contextualising and rearranging them (Linell 1998). Therefore, recon- textualisation holds an important gatekeeping function in asylum assessment, as the way the COI is used can have a determining impact on the end result of the decision. Intertextuality can be divided into manifest intertextuality and interdiscursivity, both playing a role in the COI. Manifest intertextuality refers to explicitly drawing from other texts—what is quoted, when, how, and why—through direct or indirect reporting or using references for example. Interdiscursivity refers to invisible intertextuality, that is, the kind that is drawn from but not marked nor manifested, such as genre (Fairclough 1992: 101–133). In asylum decisions, manifest intertextuality is visible in the COI sources referenced and the information based on them. As for interdiscursivity, the asylum deci- sions can be seen as part of the genre of ‘ofﬁcial notiﬁcations’ (Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 215–222). Interdiscursivity also manifests in other related genres, such as legislation, poli- cies, and the media (Bennett 2018). Although the current article mainly focuses on mani- fest intertextuality, it is also informed by the concept of interdiscursivity. 4. Data and method The data of this article consist of 67 negative ﬁrst-instance asylum decisions made by the Asylum Unit of the Finnish Immigration Service and 38 related publicly available country reports or other similar sources. From an intertextual point-of-view, asylum decisions can be seen as social formations with shared conventions of producing texts (see Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 215–222). Therefore, in this article, the asylum decisions form the texts, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 6 E. BODSTROM that is, the starting point of the analysis and the country reports form the preceding inter- texts (see Farrelly 2020). The asylum decisions in the data were made between March 2016 and March 2017, therefore during the time that Finland introduced new legislation and country reports affecting the decisions. The data include only negative decisions as the positive decisions from the time period are very short and may not include any COI at all, making them not very useful for the scope of this study. The decisions in the data concern applicants from three countries: Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. This is due to the availability of the data and the consequent method of data gathering. As asylum decisions are classiﬁed as conﬁdential in Finland, the decision data were gathered directly from asylum applicants as part of a grass-root project aiming to map their situation and support them. The applicants came from various parts of their countries and they represent various ethnicities and religions. Their reasons for seeking asylum vary from religion to ethnicity and political opinion. Most of the applicants are men, but some decisions concern families including women and children. Therefore, the decisions represent a fairly varied kind of applicants within the said geographical area. As asylum decisions include personal and sensitive information, they need to be handled with utmost care and respect. During data gathering, each applicant was asked to give informed consent about using their decisions in research and publishing. The decisions are discussed anonymously to protect the identities of the applicants. The analysis follows the principles of Fairclough’s (1992) critical discourse analysis. In the analysis, I ﬁrst identiﬁed the COI within the decision texts. I analysed the placement of COI within the decisions and the types of sources used. Then I examined the COI in re- lation to the reasons for asylum presented by the applicant. Finally, I selected certain parts of COI in the decisions for a comparative analysis with the COI reports they refer to. This selection was either done based on the similarity of the COI in the decisions or the clear differences or disconnections. The comparative analysis paid speciﬁc attention to the transformations (Fairclough 1992: 130–133), and the presence and absence (Farrelly 2020) in the texts and intertexts. 5. Analysis: the two functions of COI In this analysis section, I present general ﬁndings about networks of preceding intertexts (Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 215–222; Farrelly 2020) as well as their incorporation through recontextualisation (topics, form, placement, and modality) and functions (Fairclough 1992: 119–120) present in the decisions. Preceding intertexts refer to the sources named and used in the texts and tell which preceding intertexts are included in the texts (Farrelly 2020). In the asylums decisions, this is typically done through the use of in-text referen- ces—similar to the current article—accompanied with a list of references placed at the end of the decision. The preceding intertexts in the data can be divided into four catego- ries by their social practice and typicality (see Table 1). The ﬁrst social practice repre- sented in the data is the reports of national or supranational institutions and non- governmental organisations. They are characterised by being a result of lengthy research and are often produced with the speciﬁc aim to provide COI. A second social practice is mainstream media articles and blog texts by independent authors or think tanks. Even Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 7 Table 1. Social practice and typicality of COI in the asylum decisions SOCIAL PRACTICE Reports (Social) media texts Reports by national and Mainstream media texts Typical supranational institutions TYPICALITY Atypical Reports by NGOs Blogs by independent authors and think tanks though they vary on how ofﬁcial they are, they can in the current context be seen as part of the same social practice because they are often reactionary and fast and are originally produced for other purposes—such as public information sharing—than providing COI. As for typicality, the two most often cited preceding intertexts are reports by national or supranational institutions, such as the national COI units or the United Nations, as well as mainstream media articles. In turn, the two more atypical sources cited are COI reports by NGOs, such as human rights organisations, as well as blogs and think tanks. This indi- cates that the asylum decisions especially form intertextual networks with intertexts from governmental organisations and mainstream media, rather than those of NGOs. Incorporation addresses the question of how the preceding intertexts are recontextual- ised in the decisions, affecting the kind of meanings constructed through intertextuality (Fairclough 1992: 119–120; Linell 1998; Farrelly 2020). The topics of COI discussed in the asylum decisions cover a wide array, including ethnicity, religion, work, armed groups, governmental ofﬁcials, and honour violence as well as general security and societal situ- ation in the area of origin. As for form, COI has a tendency to repeat identically or nearly identically in various decisions regardless of the decision maker. This indicates that the COI has been copy–pasted into the decisions (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Pettitt, Townhead and Huber 2008), which may serve the efﬁciency and uniformity of decision making (Tiilila ¨ 2000). The COI is typically placed in independent paragraphs alternating with the other information, such as the rephrasing the applicant’s narrative, and the judi- cial assessment. Within the decision, COI can be placed in three different sections: ‘facts’ (i.e. as part of assessing if the applicant is personally at risk of persecution); ‘judicial as- sessment’ (i.e. as part of evaluating the general security situation and living conditions in the country or area of origin); or ‘internal ﬂight alternative’ (IFA, i.e. to evaluate, in case their home area has been deemed too unsafe, whether they can be obliged to seek safety in another area within their country rather than in the country of destination, see Schultz 2019). These are the names of the sections used in the decisions. Based on the content, ‘facts’ are about the credibility assessment based on both the narrative of the applicant and COI and, consequent to those, the future risk of persecution. ‘Judicial assessment’ is about reﬂecting the credibility and risk against the legislation in Finland (speciﬁcally the Aliens Act, 2004) and whether those make the applicant eligible to asylum, subsidiary pro- tection, or—prior to the legal changes in May 2016—humanitarian protection. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 8 E. BODSTROM Modality indicates the certainty of information (Fairclough 2003: 170–171), and the COI in the decisions presents a strong certainty. This is visible in three ways. First, the lack of modality markers in the text, words such as ‘can’ or ‘perhaps’, which would indi- cate uncertainty or hesitation. Secondly, the lack of contradictions or alternate informa- tion in the COI paragraphs, implies that the sources are by large in agreement. Thirdly, the strings of sources following the COI paragraphs, that is a paragraph can be followed by over 10 references, implying that the information presented is packed up by various sources, hence increasing its certainty. These three aspects are visible in the following example. The situation in Baghdad has stabilised considerably since the civil war phase of years 2006–2008. The armed group calling itself the Islamic State (ISIS), which attacked Central Iraq, has not attempted to seize Baghdad. Its cells have, however, managed to conduct terror attacks, such as assassinations, kidnappings, and road- side bombings, around the Baghdad Governorate. (Landinfo 2015; Migri 2015; UNSC 2015a; Upper Tribunal 2015; Washington Institute 2015.) The high modality indicates that the decisions present the COI as an indisputable and objective fact, even though this is actually not the case, as has been argued by previous re- search (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003; Good 2004; Johannesson 2012; Gibb and Good 2013). Therefore the COI in the asylum decisions is constructed as illusions of objectivity, as it is presented as objective, yet in fact formed by choices of inclusion, exclusion, and reformulations. Based on the presented analysis, I suggest that COI has two different functions in the decisions referred to here as personal and general (see Table 2). While the types of preced- ing intertexts, form, and modality tend to be similar in both, the two functions are differ- entiated by the topics and the placement of the COI. The topics of personal COI are related to the applicant’s reasons for seeking asylum (e.g. ethnicity, religion, and work), the events narrated by them (e.g. threats, violence, and torture), and the reported persecu- tor (e.g. governmental actors and armed groups). The placement of personal COI is typic- ally in the facts section, which rephrases and assesses the persecution narrative of the applicant, and the COI paragraph tends to immediately follow the retelling of the narra- tive and be followed by the assessment of the Service of the truthfulness of the narrative. Therefore, personal COI is strictly connected to the persecution narrative of the asylum applicant and its assessment. In turn, the topics of general COI are not related to the applicant’s narrative but rather to their geographical background—their country and area of origin. They may include known events of violence, legislation as well as other societal developments. General COI can be placed either in the facts, judicial assessment, or the IFA section of the decision. It tends to be placed independently, meaning without a clear link to the preceding paragraph, and in clusters with other paragraphs of general COI. For instance, the excerpt above about the situation in Baghdad, can variably be placed after ei- ther in the facts (after denying the credibility of the applicant’s persecution narrative and therefore risk of future persecution); in the judicial assessment (after denying that the ap- plicant has well-founded grounds for asylum); or in relation to the internal ﬂight alterna- tive (after accepting that the applicant is in risk in their area of origin but assessing whether they can live somewhere else, in this case, Baghdad). The example is usually Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 9 Table 2. Personal and general COI in the asylum decisions Function Topic Form Placement Function Personal Related to the Repeated identi- In the facts sec- To help assess the applicant’s nar- cally only in tion, immedi- credibility of rative, for ex- decisions of ately following the persecution ample, reasons applicants with the retelling of narrative and and events of similar reasons the narrative the personal persecution, of persecution risk of persecutor or persecutor persecution General Related to place, Repeated identi- In the facts, judi- To help assess the that is, the cally in various cial assessment general risk and applicant’s decisions re- or IFA sections, whether the country or area gardless their independently area of origin of origin reasons of per- or clustered (or return, in secution or the with other gen- case of IFA) is persecutor eral COI safe enough to return followed by one or more paragraphs about the general situation in Baghdad. Therefore the function of personal COI is to assess whether the applicant’s persecution narrative is credible and whether as a consequence they are likely to face a personal risk of persecu- tion. In turn, the function of general COI is to assess—in the case, the personal risk of per- secution has not been found likely (see Dauvergne and Millbank 2003: 305; Affolter 2021: 85)—whether the applicant faces a general risk because of the security situation in the country of origin and therefore whether the country is safe enough to return. The latter refers speciﬁcally to looking at the levels of generalised violence and the humanitarian situation to determine whether the deportation of the applicant, despite the lack of accepted risk of personal persecution, would break the principle of non-refoulement. These two functions of COI will be examined further in the following subsections through case examples and the concepts of transformations, and the presence and absence, respectively. 5.1 General COI: transformations Transformations refer to the ways in which the contents of the text change from the pre- ceding intertext to the text (Fairclough 1992: 130–133; Farrelly 2020). To look at transfor- mations in general COI, I use the case of Baghdad as an example, because Baghdad represents a clear change that happened during the period covered by the data. In the be- ginning of the period, the Finnish Immigration Service considered the city of Baghdad too dangerous for anyone to return. The statement made by the Service—discussed in the beginning of the article—marked a change in this view, as according to them the security Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 10 E. BODSTROM situation had improved. The presupposition is that this change should also be visible be- tween the COI reports of the Country Information Service and between the COI in the decisions. Therefore, I ﬁrst look at transformations between the COI reports and then be- tween the COI in the decisions. In the COI reports, there is a clear transformation. During the period affecting the deci- sions in the data, the Country Information Service published two COI reports about Iraq, the ﬁrst in October 2015 and the second in May 2016. The Finnish Immigration Service made a statement about the improvement of the security situation following the second report. Both reports are based on desk research and include overall information about the security and humanitarian situation in the country, including a section about the Baghdad area. In the 2015 report, the section about Baghdad is approximately one page long and discusses security forces, terrorist and other violent attacks as well as everyday life. In the 2016 report, the section about Baghdad is considerably longer, over two pages, and discusses violent deaths and terrorist attacks as well as restaurants, beauty pageants, sports, and culture. Indeed based on the contents, there was not a substantial change in the security situation in Baghdad between the two reports; the May 2016 report states that ‘the security situation in Baghdad has not essentially changed within the recent months’ (Finnish Immigration Service 2016b, emphasis added). A transformation does, however, occur not in the information related to the security situation but in the topics covered in the reports. As can be seen in Table 3, whereas the 2015 report brieﬂy addresses everyday life in one paragraph (paragraph 4), the 2016 re- port extensively discusses it in altogether four paragraphs (paragraphs 8–10). Indeed, in Table 3. Topics in the 2015 and 2016 COI reports about Baghdad Paragraph 2015 report 2016 report 1 General information Demonstrations 2 Situation during previous Violent deaths civil war 3 Situation after the civil war Terrorist attacks 4 Security forces Terrorist attack victims 5 Terrorist attacks Terrorist attacks 6 Other violence Violent attacks 7 Everyday life Everyday life: restaurants 8 Situation on the Green Everyday life: beauty Zone pageants 9 Everyday life: sports and culture 10 Everyday life: restaurants 11 Conservative power struggle Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 11 the 2016 report, everyday life (restaurants, beauty pageants, and sports) are presented side-by-side with the security situation (violent attacks and their victims) and given al- most equal space. Dauvergne and Millbank (2003) suggest that this kind of approach to COI may be used to present the country of origin as safer than it actually is. They describe how, in the case of sexual minority asylum applicants in Australia, COI about existing gay clubs or cruising locations was included while COI about the risks and dangers related to such venues or behaviour was excluded. This may suggest that by emphasising the every- day life aspects and giving them almost equal space as the security situation, the 2016 re- port de-emphasises security threats in order to give a safer image of the area. In contrast, in the COI in the decisions, there is almost no visible transformation. In the beginning of the period, the COI about Baghdad includes four paragraphs, repeating almost word to word in all the decisions. Any changes are mainly superﬁcial, such as changing ‘in the neighbouring municipalities surrounding the city of Baghdad and their many towns and villages’ to ‘outside the city [of Baghdad] in the so called Baghdad Belt area’. The only signiﬁcant change is adding a ﬁfth paragraph discussing the growing num- ber of bomb attacks, indicating rather deterioration than improvement of the security situation. Indeed none of the decisions referred to the May 2016 report, meaning that even several months after the report had been published, the decisions still referred to its predecessor, the October 2015 report. The analysis of both the reports and the decisions indicates that there was actually no signiﬁcant change in the security situation in Baghdad. However, after the Finnish Immigration Service made its statement about the improvement of security, there was a considerable change in the position of Iraqi asylum seekers in Finland: whereas in the lat- ter half of 2015, approximately 60 per cent of them were granted international protection, in the summer of 2016, the percentage had dropped to 25 (Finnish Immigration Service 2022). If this was not explained by the improved security situation, what could explain it? A likely explanation is the changes made to the Finnish Aliens Act. That is, until May 2016, the Act included a category of humanitarian protection, which could be granted, among other things, if the person was unable to return home due to the weak security situation. Until May 2016, Baghdad was considered one of such areas, and people origi- nating from Baghdad were therefore granted at least humanitarian protection. After the category was removed from the law, they were no longer entitled to protection (asylum or subsidiary protection, both included in the 25 per cent above) but were instead rejected. This was not considered a breach of the non-refoulement principle, since the coverage of humanitarian protection had been wider than strictly required by international agree- ments and since the applicants fulﬁlling the criteria of non-refoulement could technically be granted subsidiary protection instead (Proposal of the Government 2016). Therefore I suggest that the statement of the Service about the improvement of security in Baghdad was not a matter of fact but rather an example of the symbolic use of COI. This means, following Rosset, Liodden and Maia (2015), using COI for public policy pub- licity in order to deter and discourage asylum-seekers from seeking protection rather than describing the actual situation in the country of origin. They describe how—very similar to the Finnish Immigration Service—the Ministry of Justice of Denmark in 2014 pub- lished a press release stating that it would become more difﬁcult for Eritreans to get asy- lum, only to be later shown that the statement was based on incomplete and selective Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 12 E. BODSTROM information. Even though there are differences between the two cases, they both can point to the possible drawbacks of government-produced COI: as governments are not inde- pendent parties in asylum matters, the information produced by them may not be un- biased (Dauvergne and Millbank 2003: 313). 5.2 General COI: presence and absence This section looks at the presence and absence (see Farrelly 2020) of general COI. This refers to the way the information in the COI reports is recontextualised in the decisions and speciﬁcally what parts of them are selected to be presented and how (Linell 1998). Here I discuss the case of Afghanistan, as it provides a clear example of the presence and absence. It also shows a contradiction to the previous example of Baghdad, as COI about Afghanistan usually concentrates on the country as a whole rather than its cities or prov- inces. I start by looking at the presence and the absence of the decisions vis-a `-vis their pre- ceding intertexts, and then focus on one particular case of recontextualisation between the intertexts related to the internal ﬂight alternative. The decisions typically dedicate four paragraphs to the general COI about Afghanistan and thoroughly discuss the security situation, describing it as ‘ﬂuctuating’. The conﬂict in Afghanistan presents wide geographical and temporal ﬂuctuations. In 2015, the conﬂict claimed over 11,000 civilian casualties (including those injured), which is 4 per cent more than in 2014 and the highest number since 2009. Still the number of civilian deaths decreased a bit from the previous year. The information about the conﬂict and its casualties are indeed discussed in many COI reports, and the decisions make this present. The information is essential since an asylum-seeker cannot be deported if there is reason to believe they would be in serious danger upon return. However, the COI sources used in the decisions do not state that the security situation is ﬂuctuating, but that it is deteriorating. This is an essential difference of recontextualisation between the texts and the intertexts since ﬂuctuation indicates that al- though the security situation is sometimes deteriorating, sometimes it is improving. For example, the preceding intertext for the example above, a COI report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA 2016: 1), describes the situation as follows. In 2015, the conﬂict in Afghanistan continued to cause extreme harm to the civil- ian population, with the highest number of total civilian casualties recorded by UNAMA since 2009. Following increases in 2013 and 2014, civilian deaths and injuries from conﬂict-related violence increased by 4 per cent compared with 2014. Between 1 January and 31 December 2015, UNAMA documented 11,002 ci- vilian casualties (3,545 civilian deaths and 7,457 injured), marking a 4 per cent decrease in civilian deaths and a 9 per cent increase in civilians injured. The decision starts by describing the situation in Afghanistan as ﬂuctuating, whereas UNAMA describes it as continuing to cause ‘extreme harm’. In the following clause, the decision states the number of civilian casualties, their increase as well as this being at its highest for about ﬁve years. These same facts are found in the following clauses of the Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 13 UNAMA report, although UNAMA also mentions that the number of civilian casualties has continued to rise the third year in a row—something left unmentioned by the deci- sion. The decision concludes by emphasising that civilian deaths have decreased. This in- formation is also found in the UNAMA report but, unlike the decision, UNAMA also states that the number of civilians injured has instead increased. By these small changes— talking about ﬂuctuation rather than deterioration and emphasising the decrease in civil- ian deaths while overlooking the increase of those injured—the decisions recontextualise the situation in Afghanistan to seem less grave than what it is according to the intertexts. Indeed, in many of the texts in the intertextual chain, the deterioration of the security situation is one of their key messages. This is indicated by placement, that is placing the information right in the beginning of the report or in the executive summary. This also constructs one of the main absences found in the data. That is, even though the security situation plays a key role in the COI reports, the decisions do not necessarily use them to discuss it, but instead use them to describe health care or the judicial system, for example. In practice, this means that the reports are named and listed as references in the decision, but their central message is left absent. This is what Farrelly (2020) has referred to as nam- ing texts. According to him, naming can be an attempt to acknowledge the source of in- formation, to show that it has been included and used, without actually including the main message of the source—in the current case, the deterioration of the security situation. Similar play between the presence and absence can also be found between the preceding intertexts and their development over time. This is especially visible in the internal ﬂight guidelines of the Finnish Immigration Service, which are separate from but based on the guidelines of the UNHCR. As the Service (2018) has stated: they closely follow the guide- line of the UNHCR. There seems to, however, be a clear difference between the UNHCR guideline and the recontextualisation of the Service (see Table 4). In 2016, the Service considered the internal ﬂight alternative to be generally available to Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. However, at the same time, UNHCR considered IFA to be available to Kabul only for people with a support network or, without a support network, for single able- bodied men and married couples of working age. In practice, this means that the require- ments for IFA were much more strict according to the UNHCR than to the Service. Furthermore, when UNHCR updated its guideline in 2018, the relationship between the guidelines remained similar: whereas UNHCR stated that IFA was generally not available in Kabul any more, the Service instead posited that IFA was available with a support net- work for married couples or without it for single able-bodied men. This indicates that the Service is selective in its recontextualisation of the UNHCR guideline, making certain aspects present and others absent and consequently ending up with a distinctively differ- ent perspective on the plausibility of IFA in Kabul. 5.3 Personal COI: presence and absence Personal COI refers to the information that is directly related to the applicant’s narrative and reasons of persecution. The most prominent feature of personal COI in the data is its relational absence. That is, the decisions typically include far less personal than general COI, with altogether 12 decisions entailing no personal COI at all. The absence of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 14 E. BODSTROM Table 4. Internal ﬂight to Kabul by the Finnish Immigration Service and UNHCR Year UNHCR guideline Finnish Immigration Service guideline 2016 IFA available: with a support network IFA available with or without a sup- or without a support network in the port network case of single able-bodied men and married couples of working age 2018 IFA not generally available (regardless IFA available: with a support net- of support network) work in the case of married cou- ples or without a support network in the case of single able- bodied men personal COI manifests in two ways: either by excluding COI related to the personal situ- ation of the applicant altogether or by presenting general COI as personal COI. A poignant example of the complete absence of personal COI is a decision related to a reported blood feud in Afghanistan. Blood feuds can be deﬁned as members of a family killing members of another family in retaliatory acts of vengeance, often triggered by mur- ders of a member of one family committed by a member of the other (UNHCR 2016: 78– 79). Personal COI is typically placed immediately after retelling of the persecution narra- tive to which it is linked, and before the assessment of credibility by the decision maker. In the example, the decision retells what the applicant has told about the blood feud, but instead of continuing with COI, the decision moves directly into the assessment, which reads as follows. The Immigration Service views that it is possible that your brother was shot in [month year]. The Immigration Service does not however think it is credible that a family that has moved far away from your home village and that has not had anything to do with your family for four years had shot your brother. The Immigration Service views that possible revenge would have been done earlier than four years after your father and [the member of the other family] were killed. The decision concludes that they do not view it credible that the blood feud would have taken place as the applicant has told. As the main reason, the decision states that the act of vengeance took place four years after the original events. Since the decision does not in- clude any COI about blood feuds, it is not possible to assess what the claim is based on. Indeed available COI about blood feuds in Afghanistan clearly contradicts the argument of the decision as, according to the UNHCR (2016: 78–79) for example, if retaliation is not possible immediately, the blood feud may reactivate after years or even decades after the original events. According to research literature, these kinds of arguments are not rare in asylum decisions. Indeed Johannesson (2012) has found that asylum decisions tend to reﬂect the personal assumptions of the decision maker. That is, when assessing the way Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 15 certain kinds of people would behave, this is more often based on the assumptions of the decision maker than the available COI. This is something that Pettitt, Townhead and Huber (2008) have named speculative argumentation, meaning that the decision maker attempts to read the mind of a third party, in the current case the other party of the blood feud. More particularly, Sweeney (2007, see also Liodden 2022) has referred to the idea of a ‘reasonable persecutor’, in which the decision maker argues that a reasonable persecutor would not act in the way described by the applicant, and consequently, the applicant’s narrative must be false. However, as Sweeney points out, this argument tends to be based not on facts but on the decision maker’s assumptions on how the persecutor could have executed the acts of persecution better. These assumptions and even contradictions high- light the relevance of personal COI in asylum assessment and also the possible problems related to its absence. Absence through using general COI as personal COI is visible in an example made for an applicant from Baghdad, reportedly being a target of a bomb attack approximately ﬁve years earlier. In the decision, the retelling of the applicant’s narrative about the attack is followed by a paragraph of COI, which is in turn followed by the assessment of credibility by the decision maker. The placement of the COI indicates that the COI is used as a per- sonal COI as it follows the recounting of the narrative and is used to argue against the credibility of the applicant. Considering also the country information above, the Immigration Service does not accept it as a fact that the bomb was targeted at you but views that the blast has been a consequence of the bad security situation of the area at the time. However, the content of the COI paragraph ‘above’ is one of the paragraphs used as general COI in almost all the decisions made for Baghdadis, describing the security situ- ation in the city at the time the decision was written. As the events narrated by the appli- cant took place ﬁve years earlier, and the COI describes the current situation, the COI is not actually related to the narrative of the applicant. Therefore even though the placement of the COI indicates that it is used to assess the applicant’s narrative of persecution, the information provided by the COI is not actually relevant to this. Therefore, personal COI—that is, COI relevant to the applicant’s persecution narrative—is in actuality absent in the decision. In general, the absence of personal COI may be due to time limitations, which may encourage or force the decision makers to use the minimum number of COI (Pettitt, Townhead and Huber 2008). Even though it may be difﬁcult to ﬁnd COI that would directly link to the individual claim, the analysis shows that the lack of personal COI is not only because of this, since there is a variety of personal COI between very simi- lar decisions. For instance, even though the example above about a blood feud lacked any COI about blood feuds, other similar decisions included COI about the topic. The current example, in turn, presents a disconnection between the applicant’s narrative and the use of COI because the credibility of the applicant’s narrative is assessed based on COI irrele- vant to their narrative. As the same COI is repeated in verbatim in other decisions to pro- vide general information, it is likely that the COI paragraph has been copy–pasted to the decision and used despite the lack of connection between the narrative of the applicant and the content of the COI. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 16 E. BODSTROM 5.4 Personal COI: transformations Large and signiﬁcant transformations in COI, including personal COI, are scarce in the decisions. This already became apparent in the lack of transformations related to the gen- eral COI about Baghdad, as discussed earlier. The data do, however, include one excep- tion where the transformation of personal COI is loud and clear: the personal COI related to apostasy, meaning giving up Islam, in Iran. The data include two decisions where such COI is included, and there is a very clear distinction between them. In the decision made chronologically ﬁrst, the COI paragraph is as follows. Giving up Islam aka apostasy has not been written in the Penal Code of Iran, but it is still possible to sentence for apostasy based on the Constitution. Paragraph 167 of the Constitution states that in the absence of written law the judge must rely on the principles of Islamic law. Paragraph 220 of the Penal Code conﬁrms this (Constitution of Iran 1979, p. 167: Penal Code of Iran 2013, p. 220, IHRDC 2014). There has been no perceivable improvement in the situation of Christians during the term of President Hassan Rouhani. The most typical encroachments against Christians have been arrests, prison sentences, and criminal sentences. The arrests have targeted especially pastors who organise unofﬁcial home church activities and conduct missionary work (ICHRI 2013; DIS 2014). The example presents four statements. Firstly, it is possible to convict for apostasy in Iran. Secondly, there has been no improvement in the situation of Christians since the in- auguration of the new president considered more progressive in 2013. Thirdly, Christians face arrests as well as imprisonment and criminal sentences. Fourthly, that especially pas- tors but also other Christians can face encroachments. This inclusion of other Christians is indicated by the use of the word ‘especially’, implying that particularly but not only priests face encroachment. This interpretation is conﬁrmed by the COI reports used as sources in the paragraph, as they clearly indicate that also regular Christians may face ar- rest or harassment (e.g. DIS 2014). The second decision, made a few months later, shares the ﬁrst three sentences of the previous example, but then the paragraph continues: The only person to have been executed for converting to Christianity is pastor Hosein Soodmand of the Jama’at Rabbani congregation, who was hanged in Mashhad in 1990. After Soodmand, the only apostasy sentences conﬁrmed by the appellate organ have been given to Mehdi Dijab in 1994 and Yusef Nadarkhani in 2010. The sentence of Nadarkhani was however later changed to sentence for endangering public safety, more typical for Christian converts, and Nadarkhani was released after three years in imprisonment. (CSW 2016, DIS, Landinfo and DRC 2013, ICHRI 2013, IHRDC 2014) The second example shares the ﬁrst fact of the ﬁrst example: conviction for apostasy is possible according to the law. However, the following statements are very different. According to them, only one person ever has been executed for apostasy, and two more have been given a sentence, but one of them has since been released. This would in essence Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 17 Table 5. COI intertexts about apostasy in Iran Example 1 Example 2 Coherent intertexts Constitution of Iran 1979 Constitution of Iran 1979 Penal Code of Iran 2013 Penal Code of Iran 2013 ICHRI 2013 ICHRI 2013 IHRDC 2014 IHRDC 2014 Transformed intertexts DIS 2014 DIS, Landinfo and DRC 2013 CSW 2013 indicate that apostasy does not cause problems in Iran, as only three people have been convicted for it. The reason for this transformation within a span of a few months is unclear. No new signiﬁcant COI reports were published nor are such referenced in the later decision. The analysis indicates that there are three intertextual factors to the change: a change of an intertext, shifting the focus of the texts, and the absence and presence of information be- tween the intertext and text. Both examples refer mainly to the same sources of informa- tion, as can be seen in Table 5. Yet, there is one signiﬁcant change of intertext: the ﬁrst decision refers to a 2014 report by the Danish Immigration Service (DIS), but the second decision instead refers to an older 2013 report published jointly by DIS, The Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre (Landinfo) and Danish Refugee Council (DRC). In comparison to the other quoted reports, the added 2013 report is quite different in its content. That is, all the other reports clearly indicate that even though ethnic or born Christians may not be persecuted in Iran, Christian converts are. However, the 2013 re- port does not make this distinction, instead is collectively referred to as ‘Iranian Christians’ or ‘Christians in Iran’. For this reason also the conclusion of the report is more ambiguous than the conclusion of the other reports: according to the 2013 report, some sources say Christians are persecuted, while others say they are not. Essentially add- ing this source in the more recent decision allows the COI to argue that not all Christians are persecuted in Iran, but without explaining the difference between the situation of eth- nic Christians and Christian converts. Shifting the focus is visible between the COI paragraphs in the decisions. Whereas the ﬁrst example talks about a wide array of persecution—arrests as well as prison and crim- inal sentences—faced by Christians, the second discusses only apostasy sentences. This implies a presupposition that only those who are ofﬁcially convicted of apostasy are in fact persecuted for their religion. This ties in with the absence and presence of information, as in the second example the decision uses the lack of sentences for apostasy to indicate that those who have given up Islam do not face persecution in Iran. This is not untrue in itself, as is revealed by the COI reports. However, what the reports tell is that the lack of convic- tions for apostasy sentences is not because there would be no persecution, but because Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 18 E. BODSTROM Iran is using political sentences such as spying or endangering public safety rather than the religious sentence of apostasy to convict converts (e.g. DIS 2014: 7–8). This explana- tory information is, however, absent from the decision, therefore, creating an illusion that Christian converts would not be persecuted even though the COI reports state the contrary. 6. Conclusion The article started from the presupposition that COI is by its nature intertextual. Through analysing the intertextuality of COI it argues that COI has two functions in asy- lum decisions: general and personal. General COI refers to information about the security and human rights situation in the country or speciﬁc area, whereas personal COI is related to the applicant’s reasons and narrative of persecution. Furthermore, the article has shown how transformations as well as presence and absence can be used to recontex- tualise COI so that certain areas can seem less dangerous and certain reasons for persecu- tion less likely. Although COI is by its very nature not objective (Gibb and Good 2013), the decisions nevertheless portray it as if it was objective; as fact-like and without a hint of uncertainty or contradictions, even though it can easily be biased, irrelevant and even il- logical, as shown in the analysis. Therefore, the COI in the decisions is not objective but forms an illusion of objectivity. The question of illusions is important because legality does not automatically mean legitimacy (Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 205–206). That is, the data are composed of legal decisions meeting the requirements of the law, but the analysis implies that their legitimacy may be put to question, as the justiﬁcations of the legality are less than robust. The idea of objectivity, therefore, aims at legitimising the legality of the decisions, but the idea of illusions contests this. This means that even though the asylum decisions may be legal—and may have even been conﬁrmed as such at the appeal organs—they may nevertheless lack legitimacy. This article has mainly addressed manifest intertextuality, but COI is also a matter of interdiscursivity. According to European Asylum Support Ofﬁce EASO (2019), COI should be fact based and unbiased, aim for objectivity, be relevant to the matter, as well as logically and factually sound. The current analysis shows that this is not always the case with COI in the asylum decisions. Quite the contrary, the COI in the decisions may be se- lectively chosen to create a bias, lack relevancy to the matter in question, and also create logical fallacies in the asylum assessment. Therefore, the COI in the decisions does not seem to draw from the aim of objectivity and impartiality, but rather from a different genre, that of knowledge politics of COI (van der Kist, Dijstelbloem, and de Goede 2019), wherein its function is not to inform asylum decision making but to send a public mes- sage about the local asylum politics to current and prospective asylum applicants. As such the themes of the article are not only related to forced migration but also to the wider dis- cussions about human migrations and the attitudes and public policies related to them and, discursively, the importance of recontextualisation in ofﬁcial documents and regimes of border control. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 19 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank all the people who shared their asylum documents and helped to collect them, as well as the Deportation and Resistance workshop participants of the Nordic Migration Research (NMR) Conference and ETMU Conference at the University of Helsinki in 2021. Funding This work was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation [00210242]. Conﬂict of interest statement. The author has worked and volunteered in organisations assisting asylum applicants in their asylum procedures. Note 1. The translations from the original Finnish language material have been made by the researcher. References Affolter, L. (2021) Asylum Matters, on the Front Line of Administrative Decision-Making. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan. Aliens Act of Finland. (2004) <http://www.ﬁnlex.ﬁ> accessed 1 Dec 2021. Bednar, N. R. (2015) ‘Social Group Semantics: The Evidentiary Requirements of “Particularity” and “Social Distinction” in Pro Se Asylum Adjudications’, Minnesota Law Review, 100/1: 255–404. Bennett, S. (2018) Constructions of Migrant Integration in British Public Discourse: Becoming British. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bernstein, B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge. Bodstro ¨ m, E. (2020) ‘Because Migri Says So”: Legitimation in Negative Asylum Decisions in Finland’, Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 10/2: 5–19. Dauvergne, C. and Millbank, J. (2003) ‘Burdened by Proof: How the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal Has Failed Lesbian and Gay Asylum Seekers’, Federal Law Review, 31/2: 299–342. DIS. (2014) Update on the Situation for Christian Converts in Iran. Repot from the Damish Immigration Service’s Fact-ﬁnding Mission to Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey and London < https://www.refworld.org/docid/53b650394.html> accessed 6 Jun 2020. Eurostat. (2022) Asylum Applicants by Type of Applicant, Citizenship, Age and Sex – Annual Aggregated Data (Rounded) <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ MIGR_ASYAPPCTZA/default/table?lang=en&category=migr.migr_asy.migr_asyapp> accessed 23 May 2022. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 20 E. BODSTROM European Asylum Support Ofﬁce EASO. (2019) Country of Origin Information (COI) Report Methodology <https://coi.easo.europa.eu/administration/easo/Plib/2019_ EASO_COI_Report_Methodology.pdf> accessed 29 Jan 2021. Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. — — — (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Farrelly, M. (2020) ‘Rethinking Intertextuality in CDA’, Critical Discourse Studies, 17/4: 359–76. Finnish Immigration Service. (2016a) Humanitarian Protection no Longer Granted; New Guidelines Issued for Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia <https://migri.ﬁ/en/-/humanitaar ista-suojelua-ei-myonneta-enaa-uudet-maalinjaukset-afganistanista-irakista-ja-somaliasta> accessed 18 Dec 2020. ———. (2016b) Irakin Tilanne Huhtikuussa 2016 <https://migri.ﬁ/documents/5202425/ 5914056/68619_Irakin_tilanne_2.5.2016.pdf/27df2976-2bd4-401f-b65c-2fa58f5ce362/ 68619_Irakin_tilanne_2.5.2016.pdf> accessed 18 Dec 2020. ———. (2018) The Finnish Immigration Service has updated its guidelines on Afghanistan <https://migri.ﬁ/en/-/maahanmuuttoviraston-afganistan-linjaus-on-paivitetty> accessed 10 Jan 2021. ———. (2022) Statistics. International protection. Decisions 7/2015–8/2016. <https://tilas tot.migri.ﬁ/#decisions/23330?l=en&start=546&end=559> accessed 7 Mar 2022. Gibb, R. and Good, A. (2013) ‘Do the Facts Speak for Themselves? Country of Origin Information in French and British Refugee Status Determination Procedures’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 25/2: 291–322. Good, A. (2004) ‘Undoubtedly an Expert”? Anthropologists in British Asylum Courts’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10/1: 113–33. Johannesson, L. (2012) ‘Performing Credibility: Assessments of Asylum Claims in Swedish Migration Courts’, Retfaerd Argang, 35/3: 69–84. van der Kist, J., Dijstelbloem, H. and de Goede, M. (2019) ‘In the Shadow of Asylum Decision-Making: The Knowledge Politics of Country-of-Origin’, International Political Sociology, 13/1: 68–85. Van der Kist, J. and Rosset, D. (2020) ‘Knowledge and Legitimacy in Asylum Decision-Making: The Politics of Country of Origin Information’, Citizenship Studies, 24/5: 663–79. Linell, P. (1998) ‘Discourse across Boundaries: On Recontextualizations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse’, Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18/2: 143–57. Liodden, T. M. (2022) ‘The Map and the Territory: The Use of Country Information in Asylum Assessments’, International Migration Review, 56/1: 296–322. Pettitt, J., Townhead, L. and Huber, S. (2008) ‘The Use of COI in the Refugee Status Determination Process in the UK: Looking Back, Reaching Forward’, Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 25/2: 182–94. Proposal of the Government of Finland. (2016). Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge. Rosset, D. (2021) ‘We Have Our Own Kitchen”: Distance et Le ´ gitimite ´ Dans la Production de Savoir Pour la Proce ´ dure D’Asile’, Politique et Socie ´te ´s, 38/1: 49–69. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/migration/advance-article/doi/10.1093/migration/mnac033/6780155 by DeepDyve user on 01 November 2022 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION IN ASYLUM ASSESSMENT 21 — — — and Achermann, C. (2019) ‘Negotiating Research in the Shadow of Migration Control: Access, Knowledge and Cognitive Authority’, Social Anthropology, 27/Suppl 1: 49–67. — — —, Liodden, T. and Maia (2015) ‘The Eritrea Report: Symbolic Uses of Expert Information in Asylum Politics’, Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 5/1: 26–32. Rousseau, C. (2002) ‘The Complexity of Determining Refugeehood: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Decision-Making Process of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 15/1: 43–70. Schittenhelm, K. and Schneider, S. (2017) ‘Ofﬁcial Standards and Local Knowledge in Asylum Procedures: Decision-Making in Germany’s Asylum System’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43/10: 1696–713. Schultz, J. (2019) ‘The Internal Protection Alternative and its Relation to Refugee Status’, in Singh Juss, S. (ed.) Research Handbook on International Refugee Law, pp. 126–38. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Staffans, I. (2012) Evidence in European Asylum Procedures. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Sweeney, J. A. (2007) ‘The “Lure” of Facts in Asylum Appeals: Critiquing the Practice of Judges,’ in Smith, S. R. (ed.) Applying Theory to Policy and Practice: Issues for Critical Reﬂection, pp. 19–35. Hampshire: Ashgate. Tiilila ¨, U. (2000) ‘Tapaus pa ¨iva ¨hoitopa ¨a ¨to ¨ s’, in Heikkinen, V., Hiidenmaa, P. and Tiilila ¨, U. (eds) Teksti Tyo ¨na ¨, Virka Kielena ¨, pp. 215–66. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. UNAMA. (2016) Afghanistan. Annual Report 2015. Protection of Civilians in Armed Conﬂict <https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-annual-report-2015-pro tection-civilians-armed-conﬂict-february-2016> accessed 10 Jan 2021. UNHCR. (2016) Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Afghanistan <https://www.refworld.org/docid/570f96564.html> accessed 10 Jan 2021.

Journal

Migration Studies – Oxford University Press

Published: Oct 29, 2022

Keywords: forced migration; country of origin information; COI; asylum decisions; intertextuality

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Illusions of objectivity: The two functions of country of origin information in asylum assessment

Illusions of objectivity: The two functions of country of origin information in asylum assessment

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Illusions of objectivity: The two functions of country of origin information in asylum assessment

Illusions of objectivity: The two functions of country of origin information in asylum assessment

References (17)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies