Within the Canadian refugee determination process, the refugee's "lie" can be seen as means by which those seeking protection try to assert some power in the face of the growing barriers that more developed countries have erected against migration. It can also be analyzed, however, as an instrument by which these same countries maintain power over their borders, since the notion of the "lying refugee" allows them to turn back large numbers of claimants with a clear conscience, without calling into question the sacred principles of asylum and refugee protection. The interpretation of the refugee's story in terms of conformity and deviance relies on expert (institutional) knowledge and on an expert experience that must appear to be founded on an objectification of truth and falsehood and that therefore assumes, from the outset, that such objectification is possible. This article analyzes the discourses put forth in a series of interviews with former Immigration and Refugee Board members in Canada with respect to the notions of truth and lying in refugee hearings. Our results suggest that the hearing is often constructed as a trap aimed at proving that the refugee is lying and that assumes an objective truth. The interviews also show, however, that some board members seek on the contrary to find authenticity within the complexity of refugee stories. The latter cast doubt on the possibility of objectively determining what is true and false and attempt, via the twists and turns of the refugee's story and "strategic lies", to understand partially what the refugee has lived through and to translate it in terms of a legal decision. © 2006 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Migratory politics Judges Lie Refugee trauma

developed country Canada social aspect Conscience Behavior refugee Article interview human migration legal aspect