Role of iMMO in credibility assessment

On August 2, 2024, the District Court of The Hague issued a ruling in an asylum case involving an iMMO report from 2020. This ruling is relevant to iMMO because it provides insight into how an iMMO report is used in the examination and judgement of the application. It is particularly important to read how being a child at the time of the interview should be taken into account in the final decision on asylum.

Many years ago, Rudo* applied for asylum as a minor. After he had been granted temporary (categorical) protection for several years, an application for asylum for an indefinite period of time was rejected, and this rejection is well established in law. Using a 2020 iMMO report, Rudo then made a subsequent asylum application in 2021 where the asylum narrative remained the same as what he had previously told.

iMMO investigated whether Rudo’s medical problems stemmed from the alleged history of violence underlying the asylum application. iMMO also looked at whether there were any medical problems at the time of the earlier asylum hearings that cpuld have interfered with the ability to explain. This refers to the interviews when Rudo was still a child. Earlier, the IND rejected the subsequent asylum application because he had declared implausible, inconsistent and incongruous. This he appealed.

In this ruling, the court ruled that the appeal was well-founded and that the IND must make a new decision on Rudo’s asylum application. The ruling is relevant to iMMO because the court elaborates on how the conclusions of an iMMO report can be applied in assessing an asylum application. The court notes that credibility is central to asylum cases, rather than the complete certainty of the account. The underlying iMMO report finds that two of Rudo’s scars are consistent with the violence narrative, one group of scars is highly consistent, and two other scars and the psychological symptoms are typical according to the gradations of the Istanbul Protocol.

The IND previously objected that these gradations leave too much room for other causes for the scarring and psychological symptoms. However, the court concluded that if a gradation other than characteristic of the alleged violence is given, it does not necessarily mean that the account is therefore implausible.

That the court appoints this nuance is important to iMMO and the weight of iMMO reports. Additionally, it is significant that the court states that the IND applied an incorrect credibility assessment because the IND previously acknowledged that the iMMO report was competent and carefully prepared.

Finally, this ruling highlights the influence of being a child or adolescent at the time of interviews and how this should be taken into account, especially in light of the person’s medical and psychological problems. According to the court, the IND did not take this sufficiently into account in their decision and it can indeed have an influence. iMMO often conducts research on individuals who are minors at the time of the iMMO research, or at the time of their initial asylum application. This ruling therefore provides valuable insight into the assessment framework used by the IND and what role minority plays in it.

(*) Names are fictitious.