As Congress debates a significant overhaul of the country's immigration laws, the urgency of asylum reform is increasing as migrants flock to the U.S. southern border, and the Biden administration faces a backlog of 1.3 million immigration cases. When asylum seekers finally have their asylum interview or court hearing, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that they convince the adjudicator that they cannot return to their home country because of past persecution or “a well-founded fear of persecution.”

An asylum seeker's memories about persecution are central to the legal process. Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, adjudicators are instructed to consider any possible discrepancies in an asylum applicant's verbal and written testimonies, “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim.” As a result, applicants with narrative inconsistencies—even those that may be considered peripheral or understandable given a history of trauma-related distress—often are found not credible and are denied asylum. In this way, the system adjudicates asylum claims under the unspoken assumption that memory is like a videotape and that any inconsistency in recall of episodic memory is evidence of a deliberate lie. This hidden assumption in asylum law regularly contributes to the rejection of asylum claims that deserve greater consideration. It is also fundamentally inconsistent with current scientific understanding of trauma-related distress and human memory.

How Trauma Affects Autobiographical Storytelling and Credibility

A wide body of research in psychology, neuroscience, and related fields has found that autobiographical memory is particularly vulnerable to interference at the encoding, storage, and retrieval stages. When a specific event is encoded and stored as memory under stressful conditions, subsequent recollection of certain aspects of the event may be less accurate than those encoded under less stressful conditions. For example, subjects in a psychology study watched a slideshow depiction of either a traumatic or a nontraumatic version of the same event. Although those who watched the traumatic version recalled its central details with greater accuracy, they were less capable of recognizing specific slides. Furthermore, the effect of trauma on memory may be noted during the retrieval stage, given that people with objective signs of trauma-related distress (though not necessarily a history of trauma alone) often demonstrate reduced specificity when recalling episodic memories. All of this suggests that persons from non-U.S. cultures with histories of trauma, trauma-related distress, or both may provide honest recollections of their asylum-seeking narratives that inadvertently include inconsistencies and thus seem misleading to asylum officers or immigration judges.

To complicate matters, there is evidence that cultural background may affect the content of autobiographical descriptions of traumatic as well as nontraumatic memories. For example, people from collectivist cultures, which tend to prioritize the goals of the group, may describe “shorter, less egocentric” memories of trauma than those from more individualist cultures, which tend to prioritize the goals of individuals. These culturally mediated styles of recalling events may be misinterpreted by officials in the U.S. asylum system.

The effects of trauma and stress on episodic memory may be amplified among children and adolescents—a critical observation, given the surge of unaccompanied minors at the southern border. Depression and trauma-related distress are prevalent among child and adolescent asylum seekers with histories of trauma. Consequently, young asylum seekers often “provide less event-specific autobiographical memories” during asylum interviews and tell stories with “less emotional and sensory content” and “from an observer perspective,” seemingly detached from their memories. Thus, they may be viewed skeptically by an asylum system that equates a failure to provide specific details with an intention to deceive.

The law's adherence to outdated assumptions about memory has significant consequences for asylum seekers. For example, a woman from Guinea fled her country after government soldiers invaded her home, arrested her and her husband, and sexually assaulted her each night for several months. In the United States, she was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. However, the immigration judge who heard her case denied her asylum because of testimonial inconsistencies. For example, she had described the scars on her back as resulting from being beaten with belts but had not reported that her captors had also burned her with cigarettes—a detail she had discussed in sessions with her counselor.

Call to Action

As the Biden administration and Congress embark on widespread immigration reform, there is a historic opportunity to update asylum law's deeply flawed assumptions about episodic memory. At the systemic level, clinicians and their professional societies can advocate for a scientifically informed approach to determining credibility in asylum cases—an approach that recognizes rather than ignores the effects of trauma, stress, and culture on memory formation and recall.

At the individual level, clinicians can volunteer their services in asylum clinics. These clinics, which are often associated with medical and law schools, need more medical professionals to provide expert evaluations and affidavits—both to corroborate individual asylum claims through documentation of asylum seekers' injuries (including psychological injuries) and to contextualize narrative discrepancies as a common byproduct of trauma-related distress.

Clinicians from diverse backgrounds—including clinical psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and most major medical specialties—can contribute such evaluations. Specialized training is readily available through Physicians for Human Rights, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain & Behavior offers opportunities for clinicians to learn how expert affidavits can be developed for use in asylum cases. Because some immigration lawyers and unrepresented asylum seekers may lack access to an asylum clinic, researchers, physician-scientists, and clinicians should also prepare more generalized affidavits on the science of trauma, stress, and episodic memory for use in asylum interviews or court hearings. At least one study from 2004 suggests that individualized evaluations make a significant difference in the success of asylum claims. Affidavits with guidance on how to appropriately evaluate inaccuracies in episodic recall might also have a significant effect on asylum outcomes.

The current moment presents a rare opportunity for medical professionals to help update the outdated rules that govern asylum evaluations. We urge the medical and scientific communities to seize this opportunity by collaborating with the legal community to better account for the effects of trauma-related distress on memory and credibility. Such collaboration will produce a more just and more effective asylum system.

Summary

The country's immigration laws are currently being debated in Congress. There is a growing need for asylum reform as many migrants arrive at the U.S. southern border. The current administration has a backlog of 1.3 million immigration cases. To receive asylum, individuals must prove they cannot return to their home country due to past persecution or a strong fear of it.

Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, officials must consider any differences in an asylum applicant's spoken and written stories. This applies even if the differences do not seem important or could be understood given past trauma. Because of this, applicants whose stories have inconsistencies are often not believed and are denied asylum. The system currently operates as if memory is like a video recording, assuming any difference in recalling an event means the person is deliberately lying. This outdated assumption often leads to the rejection of asylum claims that should be considered more carefully. It also conflicts with current scientific understanding of trauma and memory.

How Trauma Affects Personal Stories and Believability

Research in psychology, neuroscience, and related fields shows that personal memories are easily affected when they are formed, stored, or recalled, especially under stressful conditions. When a person experiences a stressful event, they may remember some parts of it less accurately later. For example, a study found that people who saw a traumatic version of an event remembered the main details better but were less able to recognize specific images. Trauma can also affect memory when it is recalled; people showing signs of trauma-related distress often recall events with less specific detail. This means that individuals from other cultures who have experienced trauma or related distress may honestly recall their asylum stories with unintended inconsistencies, which might be misunderstood by asylum officers or judges.

Cultural background can also influence how traumatic and non-traumatic memories are described. For instance, individuals from cultures that value the group over the individual may describe traumatic memories as shorter and less focused on themselves compared to those from cultures that prioritize individuals. U.S. asylum officials may misinterpret these culturally influenced ways of recalling events.

The impact of trauma and stress on memory can be even greater for children and teenagers, which is important given the increase in unaccompanied minors at the southern border. Depression and trauma-related distress are common among young asylum seekers. As a result, these young people often provide less specific memories during interviews, telling stories with less emotion and sensory detail, and sometimes from an outside perspective, as if detached from their experiences. This can lead to skepticism from an asylum system that believes a lack of specific details means an intention to deceive.

The law's reliance on old ideas about memory has serious consequences for asylum seekers. For example, a woman from Guinea fled her country after soldiers invaded her home, arrested her and her husband, and sexually assaulted her for several months. In the United States, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the judge denied her asylum because her testimony had inconsistencies. For instance, she described scars from being beaten with belts but did not initially mention being burned with cigarettes, a detail she had shared with her counselor.

Call to Action

As the current administration and Congress work on immigration reform, there is a chance to update the flawed assumptions in asylum law about how memory works. At a broad level, medical professionals and their organizations can advocate for a scientific approach to judging believability in asylum cases. This approach would acknowledge the effects of trauma, stress, and culture on memory instead of ignoring them.

At an individual level, medical professionals can volunteer at asylum clinics, often linked to medical and law schools. These clinics need more medical experts to provide evaluations and written statements. This helps confirm asylum claims by documenting injuries, including psychological ones, and by explaining that differences in stories are a normal result of trauma-related distress.

Medical professionals from various fields, such as clinical psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and other medical specialties, can provide these evaluations. Specialized training is available through organizations like Physicians for Human Rights, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain & Behavior offers training on how to prepare expert statements for asylum cases. Because some immigration lawyers and asylum seekers without representation may not have access to these clinics, researchers, physician-scientists, and clinicians should also prepare more general statements about the science of trauma, stress, and memory for use in asylum interviews or court hearings. A study from 2004 suggests that individual evaluations greatly improve the success of asylum claims. Statements providing guidance on how to properly evaluate inconsistencies in memory could also significantly impact asylum outcomes.

This is a rare opportunity for medical professionals to help update the outdated rules used in asylum evaluations. The medical and scientific communities are encouraged to work with the legal community to better understand how trauma-related distress affects memory and believability. This collaboration will lead to a more fair and effective asylum system.

Asylum Law and Memory

Congress is currently discussing major changes to the country's immigration laws. This makes reforming asylum laws even more urgent. Many migrants are arriving at the U.S. southern border, and the Biden administration has a backlog of 1.3 million immigration cases. When asylum seekers finally have their interview or court hearing, they must prove they cannot return to their home country due to past persecution or a strong fear of it, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The memories an asylum seeker has about persecution are very important in the legal process. The REAL ID Act of 2005 tells judges to look at any differences in an asylum applicant's spoken and written stories, even if these differences do not relate directly to the main reason for their claim. Because of this, applicants with inconsistent stories—even small differences that might be understood given past trauma—are often found not believable and are denied asylum. This system incorrectly assumes that memory is like a video recording and that any difference in recalling an event means the person is lying. This hidden assumption in asylum law often leads to the rejection of asylum claims that should be considered more carefully. It also goes against what scientists now understand about trauma and human memory.

How Trauma Impacts Personal Stories and Trustworthiness

Extensive research in psychology, neuroscience, and related fields shows that personal memories are easily affected during the stages of memory formation, storage, and recall. When a specific event is recorded and stored as a memory under stressful conditions, recalling certain parts of that event later might be less accurate than if it happened under less stressful conditions. For example, in one psychology study, participants watched a slideshow of either a traumatic or a non-traumatic version of the same event. Those who saw the traumatic version remembered the main details more accurately, but they were less able to recognize specific slides. Also, trauma can affect memory during recall. People with clear signs of trauma-related distress (not just a history of trauma) often remember less specific details when recalling past events. This suggests that people from non-U.S. cultures who have experienced trauma, trauma-related distress, or both, might honestly recall their asylum stories but unintentionally include inconsistencies. These inconsistencies could then seem misleading to asylum officers or immigration judges.

Adding to the complexity, there is evidence that a person's cultural background can influence how they describe both traumatic and non-traumatic memories. For instance, people from collectivist cultures, which often prioritize group goals, might describe "shorter, less self-focused" memories of trauma compared to those from more individualist cultures, which tend to prioritize individual goals. Officials in the U.S. asylum system might misinterpret these culturally influenced ways of recalling events.

The effects of trauma and stress on memories of specific events can be stronger in children and adolescents. This is a crucial point, given the increase in unaccompanied minors arriving at the southern border. Depression and trauma-related distress are common among child and adolescent asylum seekers who have experienced trauma. As a result, young asylum seekers often "provide less specific personal memories" during asylum interviews and tell stories with "less emotional and sensory content" and "from an observer perspective," appearing detached from their memories. This can lead to them being viewed with doubt by an asylum system that equates a lack of specific details with an intention to deceive.

The law's reliance on outdated ideas about memory has serious consequences for asylum seekers. For example, a woman from Guinea fled her country after soldiers invaded her home, arrested her and her husband, and sexually assaulted her every night for several months. In the United States, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the immigration judge denied her asylum because her testimony had inconsistencies. For example, she had described scars on her back as resulting from being beaten with belts but had not mentioned that her captors had also burned her with cigarettes—a detail she had discussed with her counselor.

Call to Action

As the Biden administration and Congress work on widespread immigration reform, there is a chance to update asylum law's flawed assumptions about how memory works. At a broad level, healthcare professionals and their organizations can push for a scientifically informed way to determine credibility in asylum cases. This approach would acknowledge, rather than ignore, how trauma, stress, and culture affect memory formation and recall.

On an individual level, healthcare professionals can volunteer their services at asylum clinics. These clinics, often linked with medical and law schools, need more medical experts to provide evaluations and written statements. These are needed to confirm individual asylum claims by documenting asylum seekers' injuries (including psychological ones) and to explain that differences in their stories are often a normal outcome of trauma-related distress.

Clinicians from various backgrounds—including clinical psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and most major medical specialties—can contribute such evaluations. Specialized training is available through Physicians for Human Rights, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain & Behavior offers opportunities for clinicians to learn how to prepare expert statements for asylum cases. Because some immigration lawyers and asylum seekers without legal representation might not have access to an asylum clinic, researchers, physician-scientists, and clinicians should also create more general statements about the science of trauma, stress, and specific memories for use in asylum interviews or court hearings. At least one study from 2004 suggests that individual evaluations significantly increase the success of asylum claims. Statements offering guidance on how to properly evaluate inaccuracies in recalling specific events might also greatly impact asylum outcomes.

The current situation offers a unique opportunity for medical professionals to help update the outdated rules governing asylum evaluations. Medical and scientific communities are urged to take this opportunity by working with the legal community to better understand how trauma-related distress affects memory and credibility. This collaboration will create a fairer and more effective asylum system.

Asylum Law and Memory

Congress is currently discussing major changes to the country's immigration laws. This makes reforming asylum laws even more urgent, especially as many migrants arrive at the U.S. southern border, and the Biden administration faces a backlog of 1.3 million immigration cases. When asylum seekers finally have an interview or court hearing, they must prove they cannot return to their home country because they were persecuted in the past or have a well-founded fear of future persecution.

Memories of persecution are very important to the legal process. The REAL ID Act of 2005 instructs officials to look for any differences in an asylum applicant's spoken and written stories, even if these differences do not seem important to the main claim. This means that applicants who have inconsistencies in their stories, even small ones that might be expected due to past trauma, are often not believed and are denied asylum. The system seems to assume that memory works like a video recording and that any difference in recalling an event means someone is intentionally lying. This hidden assumption in asylum law often leads to the rejection of asylum claims that should be considered more carefully. It also goes against what science now understands about how trauma affects human memory.

How Trauma Affects Stories and Believability

Much research in psychology, neuroscience, and related fields shows that personal memories are easily affected when they are formed, stored, and retrieved. When an event is remembered under stressful conditions, recalling certain parts of it later might be less accurate than if it happened under less stressful conditions. For example, in one study, people watched a slideshow of an event that was either traumatic or not traumatic. Those who saw the traumatic version remembered the main points more accurately but were less able to recognize specific slides. Also, trauma can affect memory when someone tries to recall it, as people with clear signs of trauma-related distress often remember less specific details about past events. This suggests that people from non-U.S. cultures who have experienced trauma, trauma-related distress, or both, might honestly recall their asylum stories with accidental inconsistencies, which could then seem misleading to asylum officers or judges.

Adding to this complexity, there is evidence that cultural background can influence how people describe personal memories, whether traumatic or not. For instance, people from collectivist cultures, which focus on group goals, might describe shorter, less self-centered memories of trauma than those from individualist cultures, which focus on individual goals. Officials in the U.S. asylum system might misunderstand these culturally influenced ways of recalling events.

The effects of trauma and stress on memories of events can be stronger in children and teenagers. This is a crucial point, given the increase in unaccompanied minors at the southern border. Depression and trauma-related distress are common among child and adolescent asylum seekers who have experienced trauma. As a result, young asylum seekers often provide less specific personal memories during asylum interviews and tell stories with less emotion and sensory details, often sounding detached. The asylum system might view them with suspicion, as it tends to equate a lack of specific details with an intention to deceive.

The law's reliance on outdated ideas about memory has serious consequences for asylum seekers. For example, a woman from Guinea fled her country after soldiers invaded her home, arrested her and her husband, and sexually assaulted her nightly for several months. In the United States, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the immigration judge denied her asylum due to inconsistencies in her testimony. For instance, she had described scars on her back from being beaten with belts but had not mentioned that her captors had also burned her with cigarettes—a detail she had shared with her counselor.

Steps to Take

As the Biden administration and Congress work on widespread immigration reform, there is a key chance to update the deeply flawed assumptions about memory in asylum law. At a system-wide level, medical professionals and their organizations can push for an approach to judging believability in asylum cases that is based on science. This approach would acknowledge, rather than ignore, how trauma, stress, and culture affect how memories are formed and recalled.

Individually, medical professionals can volunteer their services at asylum clinics. These clinics, often linked with medical and law schools, need more medical experts to provide evaluations and written statements. These are needed both to support individual asylum claims by documenting injuries (including psychological ones) and to explain that differences in stories are a common result of trauma-related distress.

Medical professionals from various fields, including clinical psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and most major medical specialties, can provide such evaluations. Specialized training is available through Physicians for Human Rights, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain & Behavior offers training for professionals on how to create expert statements for asylum cases. Because some immigration lawyers and asylum seekers without legal representation may not have access to an asylum clinic, researchers, physician-scientists, and medical professionals should also prepare more general statements about the science of trauma, stress, and event memory for use in asylum interviews or court hearings. At least one study from 2004 suggests that individual evaluations significantly improve the success of asylum claims. Statements offering guidance on how to properly evaluate inaccuracies in recalling events might also have a significant impact on asylum outcomes.

This current time offers a rare chance for medical professionals to help update the old rules that guide asylum evaluations. The medical and scientific communities are urged to take this opportunity by working with the legal community to better understand how trauma-related distress affects memory and credibility. Such cooperation will lead to a more fair and effective asylum system.

Summary

The U.S. government is seeing many people come to the southern border to ask for safety. There are a lot of cases that need to be decided. When people ask for safety, called asylum, they must show they cannot go back to their home country. This is because they were hurt or are afraid they will be hurt.

People asking for asylum must tell their story. The law says that any small differences in their story can make officers think they are not telling the truth. This means many people are denied safety. The system often acts as if memory is like a video. It thinks any small change in a story means someone is lying. This idea is wrong and does not match what scientists know about memory and how bad experiences, called trauma, affect it.

How Bad Experiences Affect Storytelling and Trust

Studies show that bad experiences can change how people remember things. If something very stressful happens, people might remember the main parts clearly, but other small details might be less clear. For example, people who had a bad experience might recall the main parts well but forget some small details. This means people from other cultures who have gone through bad experiences might tell stories that have small differences. These differences might make them seem like they are not telling the truth, even when they are.

Also, a person's culture can change how they tell their stories, even about bad experiences. People from cultures that focus on the group might tell shorter stories that focus less on themselves. People from cultures that focus on individuals might tell more personal stories. Officials might misunderstand these different ways of telling stories.

Bad experiences can affect children and teenagers even more. Many young people asking for asylum have gone through bad things. They might tell stories that are less detailed and have less feeling. They might also sound like they are telling someone else's story. This can make them seem like they are lying to the asylum system. The system thinks that if someone cannot give many details, they are trying to trick someone.

An example is a woman from Guinea. Soldiers hurt her and her husband. She was hurt every night for months. In the U.S., she was found to have a condition called PTSD because of her experiences. But the judge denied her asylum. The judge said her story had differences. For instance, she said scars on her back were from being beaten. She had told her counselor that her captors also burned her with cigarettes, but she did not say this to the judge. The judge used this difference to say she was not telling the truth.

What Can Be Done

The government has a chance to change these old rules about memory in asylum law. Doctors and scientists can speak up. They can ask for a system that understands how bad experiences and culture affect memory.

Doctors can also help by volunteering at clinics that help people asking for asylum. These clinics need more doctors to check on people's health, including their minds. Doctors can write reports to show that people's injuries are real. They can also explain that differences in stories are normal for someone who has gone through bad experiences.

Doctors from many areas of medicine can help. They can get special training to learn how to write reports for asylum cases. Lawyers and people asking for asylum might not know about these clinics. So, scientists and doctors should also write general reports about how bad experiences, stress, and memory work. These reports can be used in asylum interviews or court. Studies show that having individualized reports can make a big difference in whether someone gets asylum. Reports that explain how to understand small differences in memory could also help a lot.

Now is a special time for doctors to help update these old rules for asylum cases. Doctors and scientists should work with legal experts. This will help the asylum system better understand how bad experiences affect memory and truthfulness. This teamwork will lead to a fairer and better asylum system.