Decision-making Procedure

Whereas in Chap. 10.1007/978-3-030-69441-8_5 we analysed pre-departure, journey and arrival experiences of SOGI claimants, we now turn our attention to the decision-making procedure. Whether they apply for asylum on arrival or later on, the initial screening is usually followed by a substantive interview. This is the essential moment when SOGI claimants have the opportunity to present their case. If the application is then refused, a judicial process is normally activated to appeal against the initial negative decision.


Decision-making Procedure
• Collection of Relevant Evidence: Collection of Relevant Evidence -OIE is responsible for collecting evidence and determining the relevancy of any evidence that is collected or provided by the parties, or witnesses. Evidence may include but is not limited to, party and witness statements, documents, electronic communications, personnel files, supervisor files, HR files, RCPD files, etc.
• Final Investigation Report: The parties receive copies of the Final Investigation Report (FIR) which includes a determination of whether OIE found a policy violation. The FIR is also sent to HR and the college, department or unit, or to the Dean of Students Office where applicable.
G r a n d R i v e r S o l u t i o n s Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a material fact more or less likely to be true.

When is evidence relevant?
Logical connection between the evidence and facts at issue Assists in coming to the conclusion -it is "of consequence" Tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without that evidence G r a n d R i v e r S o l u t i o n s G r a n d R i v e r S o l u t i o n s • Why they are different

Irrelevant or Impermissible
• How to write about it • When a party attacks credibility of the other, but on a non-issue (delay in reporting, did not go to law enforcement, minimized the report in comments to a friend or family,) • How to ask questions to get to the bottom of it without being offensive

Credibility versus Reliability
• I can trust the person's account of their truth because it is consistent with other evidence. • It is probably true and I can rely on it.

Reliablity
• I trust their account based on their tone and reliability. • They are honest and believable. • It might not be true, but it is worthy of belief. • It is convincingly true. • The witness is sincere and speaking their real truth. Determine the material facts -focus only on material facts.

2.
Determine which material facts are: • Undisputed -consistent, detailed and plausible, and/or agreed upon by the parties [e.g., Marcy and Jack attended a fraternity party on April 5, 2019] • "While Jack maintained that he never kissed Marcy and went home early, several witnesses corroborated that he was at the party until 3 a.m. In addition, a photo was submitted by a witness showing Jack kissing Marcy. Therefore, I find that Jack's version of events cannot be credited as being more likely than not to be true." CREDIBILITY/RELIABILITY ANALYSIS STEP BY STEP G r a n d R i v e r S o l u t i o n s • Did the person share the same version of events in all settings, including interviews, in written and/or verbal statements and between documentary evidence?
• Are there any discrepancies or contradictions?
• Is there a sufficient explanation for any discrepancies?

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
CONSISTENCY OVER TIME G r a n d R i v e r S o l u t i o n s • Is the testimony or evidence consistent with the other evidence?
• Is the testimony or evidence inconsistent with the other evidence?
• Is there a sufficient explanation for any inconsistencies?

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY
G r a n d R i v e r S o l u t i o n s • Is there witness testimony (either by witnesses or people who saw the person soon after the alleged incident, or people who discussed the incidents with the person around the time they occurred) or documentary or physical evidence that corroborates the person's testimony?
• Is there witness testimony or documentary and/or physical evidence that are inconsistent with statements made during the interview or does not provide corroboration to the person's version of events?