ABSTRACT
In this chapter we reflect on questioning during the hearing, which is normally conducted by the judge and legal representatives. We sketch out various types and tactics of questioning and reflect on what can help to make questioning effective in asylum appeals. We then examine instances of problematic assumptions that characterised the verbalised reasoning of some of the judges we observed. When judges expressed scepticism about appellants’ accounts, they sometimes referenced European, white, mainstream Christian and heteronormative standards of what was ‘normal’ and hence what could be considered unusual or improbable. By identifying these instances, the chapter draws attention to the importance of reflecting critically on the yardsticks that judges and others employ to define normalcy, deviance and likelihood when making credibility assessments.
