When the system asks: "Why didn't this person tell their story right?"

There is a scene that repeats itself in United States immigration courts.

A person sits before a judge, begins to recount what they lived through, and freezes. They skip a part. They contradict something they said before. They seem too distant, or too emotional. And there, in that moment, a silent question hangs in the air: is she telling the truth?

That question carries the weight of a life. In an increasingly pressured immigration system — with a backlog of approximately 3.2 million cases and a recent drop in asylum approval rates — the time, and often the willingness, to understand what lies behind a fragmented narrative seems to be shrinking. In August 2025, TRAC data showed that only 19.2% of asylum requests decided in that period were granted. In January 2026, another analysis cited by the Los Angeles Times indicated an approval rate of less than 3% for cases decided that month.

And it is precisely there that trauma can cost someone the right to stay.

Experiences of violence, persecution, abuse, or exploitation are not stored in memory like an organized file. They fragment. They get scrambled. Sometimes they disappear entirely, until something brings them back in a way the person themselves cannot control.

This is why a traumatized person may forget dates, confuse the order of events, freeze when trying to describe a scene, display intense emotion — or, on the contrary, appear completely dissociated from what they are recounting.

Outside a clinical context, this can be read as contradiction, exaggeration, or lack of credibility.

Clinically, however, these responses have a name and an explanation. Memory gaps, non-linear narratives, and shifts in behavior during testimony can all be part of trauma's impact — and are often compounded by the stress of the immigration process itself.

What looks like contradiction may be memory fragmentation. What looks like coldness may be dissociation. What looks like exaggeration may be traumatic activation.

In most asylum cases, the story told by the applicant is one of the central pillars of the claim. And when credibility is called into question, the case can be deeply weakened.

At the same time, stories told by trauma survivors often challenge what many people culturally expect from a "credible" account: absolute consistency, linearity, and emotional stability. The problem is that trauma does not always present itself that way.

In 2026, this landscape became even more precarious with the publication of a DOJ rule making merit review by the Board of Immigration Appeals discretionary rather than automatic in all cases. This further increases the weight of each hearing — and the risk that a superficial reading of testimony affected by trauma may have permanent consequences.

The role of psychological evaluation

This is where a well-constructed psychological report stops being merely a supporting document and becomes an essential protective tool.

When there are symptoms of PTSD or other psychological impacts that may affect how a person speaks, remembers, or responds, a psychological evaluation helps translate this in a clinical, technical, and court-comprehensible way.

But a quality report goes beyond describing symptoms. It explains how that specific trauma affects that specific person — their memory, their narrative, their emotional regulation, their functioning today.

It is not about saying the person cries, freezes, or appears anxious. It is about explaining how, when, and why those symptoms appear — and what they reveal about the experience being described.

That distinction matters.

Because in a system with growing demands for corroboration, a psychological evaluation can be one of the most serious and rigorous ways to demonstrate something no document alone can prove: the real impact of what a person has lived through.

When trauma and the legal system meet, credibility cannot be assessed without considering what the experience has done to the person trying to recount it.

Sometimes the question should not be: "Why didn't this person tell their story right?"

The right question is: what might trauma be doing to the way this story is being told?

And that question — when asked with clinical rigor and translated into language a court can understand — can change the outcome of a case.

_________

References

TRAC Immigration. Immigration Court Asylum Grant Rates Cut in Half. - Immigration Court Asylum Grant Rates Cut in Half 

Los Angeles Times. Asylum approvals plummet as fearful immigrants skip hearings. - Asylum approvals plummet as fearful immigrants skip hearings - Los Angeles Times

Reuters. Report on immigration court backlog in 2026. - Trump administration names immigration judges with enforcement backgrounds amid deportation push | Reuters.

UNHCR. Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems. - 51a8a08a9.pdfSaadi, A. et al. Associations between memory loss and trauma in US asylum seekers. - Associations between memory loss and trauma in US asylum seekers: A retrospective review of medico-legal affidavits - PMC

Lustig, S. L. et al. Symptoms of Trauma among Political Asylum Applicants. - Symptoms of Trauma among Political Asylum Applicants: Don't Be Fooled

Scruggs, E. et al. A qualitative study of legal perspectives on medical affidavits in the asylum process. - “An Absolutely Necessary Piece”: A qualitative study of legal perspectives on medical affidavits in the asylum process - PMC