Ineke H. Crezee
Esther Monzó-Nebot
Elba Ramirez
Jona Sanders- 1School of Social Sciences and the Humanities, Faculty of Culture and Society, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
- 2Department of Translation and Communication Studies, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de La Plana, Spain
- 3AIIC, Geneva, Switzerland
LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers face unique challenges in proving their claims, as their identities are often criminalized or stigmatized in their home countries. Asylum processes rely heavily on credibility assessments, where interpreters play a crucial role in communication. Common issues in interpreter-mediated asylum interviews include lack of specialized training, linguistic barriers, cultural biases, confidentiality concerns, and structural undervaluation of interpreters. In the Netherlands, Work Instruction 2019/17 provides guidelines for assessing LGBTIQ+ claims incorporating international recommendations, but gaps persist in interpreter selection, training, and oversight. This review identifies best practices, including comprehensive interpreter training, trauma-informed approaches, and standardized ethical guidelines. Policy recommendations are suggested, emphasizing the need for clearer protocols, ongoing professional development, and institutional recognition of interpreters’ impact on asylum outcomes.
1 Introduction
The right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law (United Nations, 1948, 1951, 1966), allowing individuals to escape persecution based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Recently asylum systems have experienced an increase in claims based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) (European Union Agency for Asylum, 2022a). This policy review focuses on LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers, whose identities may be criminalized or socially stigmatized in their home countries and often face significant challenges in proving their claims. Unlike other claims where physical evidence may be available, LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers must rely on personal testimony, which is subject to credibility assessments influenced by caseworkers’ cultural predispositions and host system’s structural biases (de Bruine et al., 2023). For instance, concealing their identity may be determinant in staying safe in their home countries, but when they are arguing their cases in their host countries, they are expected to have performed their identities, which results in a traumatizing paradox (Singer, 2021).
In the Netherlands, asylum seekers citing persecution due to their sexual orientation or gender identity must undergo a structured evaluation process led by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND). This process includes interviews to assess credibility (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, 2024; Government of the Netherlands, 2025; Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, 2025). Work Instruction 2019/17 (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, 2019) sets specific guidelines for assessing LGBTIQ+ claims that incorporate international guidelines for handling LGBTIQ+ asylum cases, including the use of open-ended questions and consultation with specialized coordinators. However, challenges remain, such as the reliance on Western-centric models of self-identification and inconsistent application of policies across cases (Vissers, 2018; Jansen, 2023; Selim et al., 2023).
Additionally, most asylum interviews in the Netherlands and elsewhere require the mediation of interpreters, and their renderings heavily influence caseworkers’ perceptions of the applicants and case outcomes. However, and despite advances in the international arena (ILGA-Europe, 2016; UNHCR Austria, 2017), the regulation of interpreter selection and training is still lacking (Pöllabauer, 2023), leading to potential distortions in asylum seekers’ testimonies because of the involvement of non-professional interpreters and the lack of specific training in interpreting programs that can adequately equip professionals handling sensitive topics related to SOGIESC. These are some of the systemic issues that highlight the need for improved policies in asylum adjudication.
This policy review will focus on the gaps identified in the policies implemented by the Netherlands for interviews in LGBTIQ+ asylum claims, specifically focusing on arrangements related to the interpretation of asylum interviews. After outlining challenges involved in interpreting the interviews of LGBTIQ+ asylum applicants, we will outline best practices before highlighting both these strengths and the gaps in the Netherlands’ current approach.
2 Challenges in interpreting for LGBTIQ+ asylum applicants
Interpreted asylum interviews pose various challenges that may impact the accuracy of interpreting and therefore, the credibility of the applicant as perceived by the caseworker, and ultimately the fairness of the process (e.g., Smith-Khan, 2023b; Ottosson et al., 2024). The following is a brief outline of these issues, synthesized from an article by the first two authors currently under review. Although not comprehensive, this overview is intended to provide sufficient context for our recommendations.
2.1 Lack of specialized training and standardized guidelines
Despite the stakes for the lives of LGBTIQ+ asylum applicants, non-professional interpreting or other ad hoc solutions are common in asylum interviews (e.g., Maréchal, 2022; Jacobs, 2024). The availability of trained interpreters in the relevant languages is limited due to their infrequent inclusion in Western educational programs (Veglio, 2024; Singureanu et al., 2025, p. 57–58), but when professional interpreters are engaged, issues subsist, as formal training in asylum-related linguistic, legal, and psychological aspects is both scarce and pressing (Lee, 2014). The 20–25-h training developed by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) under Regulation 2021/2303 (European Parliament, and Council of the European Union, 2021) is neither formally assessed nor linked to any accreditation (European Union Agency for Asylum, 2022a), and no accreditation is required to serve as an interpreter in such cases. The subsequent training gaps may result in inconsistencies and misinterpretations, especially considering the linguistic, sociolinguistic, and cultural challenges involved. Additionally, interpreting-specific guidelines for asylum interviews are rarely implemented (e.g., van der Kleij, 2015), especially when non-professional interpreters are involved, and guidelines for interpreting LGBTIQ+ asylum applicants remain limited.
2.2 Linguistic challenges
Many languages lack specific terms for describing LGBTIQ+ identities (e.g., Raza-Sheikh, 2020; European Union Agency for Asylum, 2024) and translations require adaptation and sometimes paraphrasing. Since the languages of asylum applicants are usually less resourced, the lack of glossaries and standard terminology (Lai et al., 2024) may introduce imprecisions or incongruences when different translators or interpreters are involved in the same case, or if machine translation is involved (Refugee Action, 2023; Smith-Khan, 2023b; Giustini, 2024). Dialectal variants and differing cultural connotations may further increase irregularity of translation equivalences. Resulting variations may impact credibility assessments if caseworkers are not aware of these issues (Smith-Khan, 2023a). Additionally, lack of knowledge and awareness of sociolinguistic issues may lead to the use of incorrect or pejorative terms, distorting testimony and impacting trust on the part of the applicant.
2.3 Cultural sensitivity and interpreter bias
Interpreters often share applicants’ cultural backgrounds (Eklöf et al., 2017), which can aid communication and accuracy by ensuring understanding, but also introduce bias. Socialized beliefs and cultural taboos about gender and sexuality may lead to omissions, alterations, or misrepresentations of testimony, impacting credibility assessments (ILGA-Europe, 2016). Additionally, interpreters from specific cultural backgrounds may refuse to participate in LGBTIQ+ asylum interviews because of their religious beliefs, making it difficult to find interpreters for specific languages.
2.4 Confidentiality and trust issues
When interpreters and applicants share the same cultural background, applicants may fear that interpreters from their communities will disclose sensitive information, leading to self-censorship (Selim et al., 2023). Conversely, differences in sociocultural background may result in trust issues (European Union Agency for Asylum, 2024), and these issues can also manifest between interpreters and applicants with different gender identities. If non-professional interpreters are involved breach of confidentiality may occur, as they are not bound by any codes of practice. Despite confidentiality being a requirement at the European Union level (European Parliament, and Council of the European Union, 2024, article 13), engaging non-professional interpreters remains a common practice (e.g., Jacobs and van Hest, 2025).
2.5 Emotional and psychological barriers
Trauma is very prevalent among LGBTIQ+ asylum applicants and may affect their ability to present a coherent narrative (Bögner et al., 2010). Additionally, interpreters may encounter difficulties managing emotionally distressing content (see Crezee et al., 2011). The lack of training in trauma-informed interpreting (Bancroft, 2017; Administrative Offce of Pennsylvania Courts, and Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, 2018) can hinder effective communication and contribute to re-traumatization.
2.6 Legal complexity and credibility assessments
Given the frequent absence of documentary evidence to support their claims, the credibility assessments of LGBTIQ+ asylum applicants rely primarily on their verbal testimony (Berg and Millbank, 2009). In this context, interpretation presents multiple challenges mentioned above: the need to paraphrase due to linguistic asymmetries, potential omissions resulting from insufficient training, interpreter bias, culturally divergent narrative structures, and alterations in emotional tone. These factors can distort meaning and reinforce systemic biases that privilege Western conceptions of LGBTIQ+ identities. Effective interpretation in LGBTIQ+ asylum interviews requires a hybrid skillset that draws on both legal and public service interpreting. Regarding the former, accuracy, procedural knowledge, and impartiality are essential, but also awareness of the institutional discursive situation (Barsky, 1994) by both applicants and interpreters. Concerning the latter, the communicative situation of asylum interviews demands sensitivity to emotional expression, identity disclosure, sociolinguistic asymmetries, and sociocultural nuance. However, these skillsets are rarely taught or practiced in an integrated manner.
2.7 Structural undervaluation of interpreters
Monolingualism has been identified as a major challenge in legal systems (e.g., Angermeyer, 2008, 2014; Cho, 2021; Maréchal, 2022). This structural obstacle hinders the smooth conduct of multilingual encounters by reinforcing ideological constructs or fantasies (Žižek, 1989) that shape assumptions, expectations, and behaviors in counterproductive ways. These fantasies give rise to expectations that infringe upon applicants’ rights—for example, the presumption that they should be proficient in the national language (Maryns, 2005, 2006); the suspicion directed at those who exhibit some understanding of the host country’s language yet still request an interpreter (e.g., Jacobs, 2024); or the belief that the mere presence of an interpreter neutralizes linguistic inequality (Mowbray, 2022), positioning speakers of non-dominant languages on equal footing with speakers of dominant ones. This latter view ignores the fact that languages function as markers of social identity and that structurally legitimized inequalities are distributed across them, shaping assessments and interaction (e.g., Castelló-Cogollos and Monzó-Nebot, 2023). Despite formal recognition of the key role of interpreters (European Union Agency for Asylum, 2025), low pay, delayed payments, and the reliance on untrained interpreters undermine the quality of interpretation in asylum settings (see Kunreuther and Rao, 2023 for an assessment of the valuation of interpreting in contemporary societies). Moreover, interpreters are positioned as subordinate to authorities, facing pressure to perform neutrality and fulfill bureaucratic functions (Maréchal, 2025). They are frequently conceptualized as neutral conduits (European Union Agency for Asylum, 2024), rather than as professionals whose work materially influences credibility assessments—an assumption that can hinder effective collaboration with caseworkers. The inconsistent assignment of interpreters to the same case—often driven by last-minute availability (see, e.g., Jacobs, 2024; Pöllabauer, 2024)—reduces continuity and introduces discrepancies that may compromise the evaluation of applicants’ credibility. A broader underestimation of linguistic differences and of the interpreter’s role contributes to the absence of institutionalized practices for recording interviews (Maryns, 2013), thereby preventing verification of whether distortions occurred during interpretation and limiting applicants’ ability to appeal decisions. Although the European Union has formally recognized the necessity of recording asylum interviews (European Parliament, and Council of the European Union, 2024), implementation at the national level remains inconsistent.
3 Best practices and gaps in the Netherlands
The Netherlands recently revised its policies on hearing and deciding asylum claims based on LGBTIQ+ orientation in response to strong criticism (Vissers, 2018). The updated Dutch IND procedures (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, 2019) place the applicant’s personal narrative at the center of credibility assessments in LGBTIQ+ asylum cases, emphasizing individual feelings, experiences, and the process of self-discovery rather than requiring fixed forms of proof. Hearings are guided by thematic areas—such as relationships, community involvement, and experiences of discrimination—but these are not intended to serve as rigid checklists. Strict limitations on evidence gathering prohibit medical or psychological testing, the submission of explicit images, and reliance on stereotypical assumptions about LGBTIQ+ identities, following UNHCR recommendations (UNHCR, 2019). Open and respectful questioning is a core principle, requiring interviewers to adapt their approach to the applicant’s cultural background, avoid bias, and foster authentic engagement. Moreover, specialized LGBTIQ+ coordinators are now involved in all such cases to ensure consistent, fair, and informed decision-making across all IND offices.
Despite the improved policies and guidelines governing LGBTIQ+ asylum cases in the Netherlands (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, 2019), significant gaps remain in the training, oversight, and standardization of interpreter practices generally and in these cases. One of the primary concerns is the lack of specialized training programs tailored to interpreting for LGBTIQ+ individuals. There are no specific undergraduate training programs than can prepare interpreters for legal or social service settings. Despite Belgium having developed specific training to this effect (e.g., Agentschap Integratie & Inburgering, and Kruispunt Migratie-Integratie, 2015), differences between Flemish and Dutch in specialized terminology make Belgian training unsuited for practice in the Netherlands. Available training is private and costly. Similarly, there are no possibilities to develop specialized skills in languages of lesser diffusion (LLDs) or lesser equivalency than English1 in university programs.
There is, however, a structured interpreter credentialing system (Raad voor Rechtsbijstand, 2025). This system is based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2018) and demands the highest levels (at C1 or C2) of linguistic competence for legal interpreting, further requiring that interpreters are registered with the Bureau Wbtv (Register of Sworn Interpreters and Translators). While the Bureau Wbtv requires interpreters to meet language proficiency standards and complete general legal training, there is no mandated curriculum to ensure that interpreters are adequately prepared to address the specific linguistic, cultural, and psychological complexities of asylum interviews—particularly in LGBTIQ+ asylum claims—nor the cognitive demands of interpreting in ways that facilitate applicants’ ability to develop their narratives effectively. Additionally, without formal training in SOGIESC-related terminology, interpreters may struggle to accurately convey key aspects of the asylum seeker’s testimony, leading to potential misinterpretations and variability in paraphrasing that may lead to unfair credibility assessments.
Another critical shortcoming is the absence of quality guidelines and control mechanisms and systematic evaluations of interpreter performance. The Legal Aid Board has recently adopted revised codes of conduct for translators and interpreters, respectively (Raad voor Rechtsbijstand, 2023) that uphold five core values: integrity, independence, and impartiality; confidentiality; completeness; transparency; and professionalism. In the context of LGBTIQ+ asylum interviews, certain elements of the interpreter’s role—as outlined in the revised version of the Code of Conduct for Sworn Interpreters—are particularly relevant. Interpreters are expected to introduce themselves in both languages and briefly explain their role before the interview begins. They must maintain impartiality, adhere to confidentiality requirements, interpret all utterances fully and accurately, report any difficulties with terminology, and decline assignments for which they are not adequately qualified. However, no oversight measures such as periodic assessments, feedback mechanisms, and structured professional development opportunities to ensure their qualification for underserved contexts have been implemented. Additionally, the revised guidelines are unable to make any requirements for caseworkers to learn how to work with an interpreter. No arrangements have been made so far for interviews to be recorded in application of EU regulations (European Parliament, and Council of the European Union, 2024). Furthermore, training and accreditation systems and recruiting practices do not ensure professional interpreters are available (especially for languages of lesser diffusion). Ethical standards are therefore not ensured.
Bias poses another challenge that has yet to be adequately addressed. Since interpreters often share cultural and linguistic backgrounds with asylum seekers, their personal beliefs and experiences may influence the way they translate and frame information. In the context of LGBTIQ+ asylum cases, interpreters who hold conservative views on gender and sexuality may consciously or unconsciously distort applicants’ statements, omit crucial details, or introduce subtle modifications that affect how decision-makers perceive the credibility of the claim. Addressing this issue requires comprehensive bias-awareness training, clear reporting structures for cases of suspected bias, and the inclusion of independent checks on interpreter fidelity in asylum hearings. This would be considerably facilitated by the recording of the interpreted interviews.
Another significant gap is the lack of specific protocols addressing interpreter involvement in LGBTIQ+ asylum cases. Work Instruction 2019/17 fails to provide concrete guidance on the role of interpreters, leaving room for inconsistencies in practice. For instance, there are no instructions regarding how or whether to ask about preferred pronouns or gender identity terms. Moreover, interpreters often lack access to support networks or training in trauma-informed interpretation and the use of culturally sensitive or affirming language. While the revised Code of Conduct for Sworn Interpreters emphasizes impartiality, professionalism, and respect for all individuals regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, it does not require specific training or offer LGBTIQ+-specific guidance. This leaves interpreters to navigate complex identity-related terminology and emotionally charged situations without formal preparation—potentially affecting both the quality of interpretation and the well-being of all parties involved.
Furthermore, the shortage of qualified interpreters for languages of lesser diffusion (Balogh et al., 2016) exacerbates existing challenges. Many asylum seekers come from regions where their native languages are not widely spoken outside their countries of origin, making it difficult to find trained interpreters with the necessary linguistic and cultural knowledge. This shortage often results in reliance on interpreters with a different linguistic combination, lower levels of proficiency, or without legal or asylum-related experience, further increasing the potential for distortion and misrepresentation.
4 Policy recommendations for the Netherlands
Best practices in interpreting for LGBTIQ+ asylum applicants in the Netherlands.
Building on the challenges outlined in earlier sections and drawing from the ongoing research of the first two authors, this section consolidates best practices and policy recommendations to strengthen interpreter training, accountability, and structural supports for interpreting in LGBTIQ+ asylum cases. The Dutch context serves as the specific reference point, given existing institutional gaps and the need for reform that is sensitive to both international standards and local constraints.
4.1 Training, credentialing, and specialization
A central challenge in the Netherlands, as in many jurisdictions, is the lack of interpreter training tailored specifically to the complexities of LGBTIQ+ asylum cases. While the Netherlands maintains a general code of conduct for sworn interpreters and translators (Raad voor Rechtsbijstand, 2023), this framework fails to address the nuanced realities of working with asylum seekers with diverse SOGIESC. Effective communication in these contexts requires specialized competencies that go beyond general linguistic fluency and legal terminology.
To address this, official interpreter guidelines should be developed specifically for LGBTIQ+ asylum settings. These should outline expectations around trust-building, accurate and respectful rendering of culturally sensitive language, and recognition of biases (ILGA-Europe, 2016). Existing practices—such as interpreters introducing themselves and clarifying their role—should be preserved and expanded through the integration of LGBTIQ+-specific elements in interpreter and caseworker training protocols (UNHCR, 2019).
Training must cover trauma-informed interpreting, self-care, legal frameworks, and asylum processes (d'Ardenne et al., 2007; Crezee et al., 2015; Bancroft, 2017). Furthermore, interpreters should be instructed in the challenges of credibility assessments and cultural variations in LGBTIQ+ identities (Scheffer, 2001; Crezee and Lai, 2022). Reflective assignments, role-playing exercises (UNHCR Austria, 2017), and specialized courses in intercultural development are effective tools to enhance self-awareness and develop ethical practice.
Caseworkers too should be trained to collaborate effectively with interpreters (European Parliament, and Council of the European Union, 2024), particularly by developing an understanding of the interpretive process, identifying language needs, and adapting interview techniques accordingly (European Union Agency for Asylum, 2022c). Instruction in machine translation literacy (Bowker, 2023) may help clarify the limitations of automated tools, emphasizing the importance of human interpretation in sensitive cases.
To support these aims, interpreter accreditation in the Netherlands must be reformed. The current registration with the Bureau Wbtv emphasizes language proficiency but does not assess interpreters’ ability to navigate asylum-specific discourse or LGBTIQ+ sensitivity. A new specialization pathway is needed—accredited by relevant bodies—to assess not only CEFR-level language skills, but also psychosocial aptitude, SOGIESC knowledge, and capacity for emotional regulation and bias control (Ramirez and Crezee, 2024; Pöllabauer, 2007). Training should also be financially accessible, particularly for individuals from marginalized linguistic communities and those interpreting in languages of lesser diffusion (Balogh et al., 2016; Singureanu et al., 2025; Pöllabauer and Zwischenberger, 2025).
4.2 Techniques and ethical practice in interpretation
Interpreter effectiveness in LGBTIQ+ asylum cases depends on clearly defined roles, transparency in process, and techniques grounded in ethical and trauma-informed practice (Bancroft, 2017; European Union Agency for Asylum, 2022b). Applicants should be informed of the interpreter’s confidentiality obligations and, where possible, be given choice in the interpreter’s gender and linguistic background. Open-ended questions must be preserved in translation, and cultural or linguistic ambiguities—especially in the absence of direct equivalents for certain SOGIESC terms—must be managed with care (Raza-Sheikh, 2020; European Union Agency for Asylum, 2024).
The use of first-person interpreting, minimal intervention, and avoidance of euphemisms, condensations, or narrative adaptations are all crucial (Hlavac, 2017). Interpreters should facilitate accurate communication without inserting personal views or diluting testimony, particularly as this could distort credibility assessments (Fobear, 2015; Berg and Millbank, 2009). Recognizing unconscious bias and the pressures of dominant cultural norms requires regular self-reflection and peer-supported discussion.
While these guidelines exist in abstract, their implementation in Dutch asylum procedures remains inconsistent. Caseworkers and interpreters alike should be encouraged to normalize interpreter interventions—such as pausing or clarifying phrasing—as a matter of ethical conduct, not disruption. Without institutional backing, interpreters may feel compelled to prioritize compliance over professionalism, especially in freelance arrangements that lack job security or peer support (Maréchal, 2025).
4.3 Structural conditions, institutional reform, and professionalization
The quality of interpreting in asylum proceedings is shaped not only by individual competence but also by institutional conditions. The Netherlands, like many EU countries, has largely adopted a market-based model for interpreter procurement. This model prioritizes efficiency and cost-minimization, often to the detriment of interpreter preparedness, continuity of service, and professional integrity (Pöllabauer, 2024). Interpreters are frequently engaged on an ad hoc basis, without sufficient briefing, emotional support, or opportunities for follow-up.
A shift toward structurally embedding multilingualism and recognizing interpretation as a co-constructive element of asylum proceedings is needed. This would entail allocating resources not on the basis of market competition, but on the social need for equitable access to justice. Structured interpreter networks could be created to share best practices and identify systemic problems. Permanent interpreting services would facilitate continuity, allowing for case-specific interpreter assignments, improving trust and procedural fairness, and reducing the burden of re-explaining sensitive narratives.
To professionalize interpreting services, additional reforms are needed. These include (1) developing standardized glossaries for SOGIESC-related terminology (Lai et al., 2024), (2) supporting translation and training materials in minority languages, and (3) building partnerships between state institutions, NGOs, and educational providers. Such partnerships can increase capacity for interpreter education and develop context-specific resources that reflect the lived experiences of LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers.
Simultaneously, caseworkers must be trained to understand the cognitive and ethical demands of interpreting. This includes recognizing how interpreter-mediated interactions shape credibility assessments and how institutional cultures can marginalize interpreters as mere transmitters of speech (Monzó-Nebot, 2024). Reframing interpreting as an epistemic and procedural activity would allow interpreters to be treated as co-participants in meaning-making—critical for fair asylum adjudication.
4.4 Monitoring, feedback, and support systems
In the Netherlands, mechanisms to evaluate interpreter performance are weak, and avenues for redress or feedback are limited. Establishing regular assessments, randomized audits, and independent reviews of interpreter-mediated interviews would improve accountability and provide data to guide reform. Interview recordings, already recommended at the EU level (European Parliament, and Council of the European Union, 2024), should be implemented systematically. Feedback loops involving both asylum seekers and caseworkers could identify specific problems while ensuring that interpreters have an opportunity to learn and grow.
Interpreter well-being must also be prioritized. LGBTIQ+ asylum cases are often emotionally intense, involving disclosures of trauma, abuse, or persecution. Without mental health support, peer supervision, or structured debriefing, interpreters risk burnout or disengagement (d'Ardenne et al., 2007; Crezee et al., 2011). Institutions should invest in supervision programs, mental health resources, and ethical guidance that enable interpreters to sustain long-term professional involvement in such emotionally taxing work (Costa et al., 2020).
Support networks—whether through unions, professional associations, or institutional partnerships—can also provide avenues for grievance resolution and advocacy. In the absence of such networks, interpreters remain isolated, with limited power to influence policy or working conditions. Equitable contracting frameworks and professional protections must be instituted to ensure that interpreters can advocate for both themselves and the quality of the services they provide.
5 Conclusion
The Dutch asylum system faces challenges in ensuring fair treatment for LGBTIQ+ applicants, particularly in credibility assessments and interpreter-mediated interviews. Issues such as cultural bias, linguistic inaccuracies, and lack of specialized training affect the quality of interpretation, which in turn influences asylum decisions. The absence of clear guidelines for interpreters and caseworkers further complicates the process.
To ensure fair and accurate interpretation for LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers in the Netherlands, reforms must be wide-ranging, systemic, and inclusive. These reforms include developing specialized training, accrediting LGBTIQ+ competencies, enhancing structural protections for interpreters, and reframing interpreting as a professional and epistemic contribution to asylum processes. Without these changes, the procedural fairness of the Dutch asylum system remains compromised, and the safety and rights of vulnerable applicants are left at risk.
Data availability statement
The data analyzed in this study were obtained from publicly available official websites and institutional publications. Source links and additional access information are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
IC: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft. EM-N: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ER: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. JS: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^Cindy Roat, personal communication with the first author, 28 February 2025.
References
Administrative Offce of Pennsylvania Courts, and Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. (2018). Trauma-informed interpreting. Available online at: https://pcar.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdfs/trauma-informed_interpreting_booklet_508.pdf.
Agentschap Integratie & Inburgering, and Kruispunt Migratie-Integratie. (2015). Training and certification of social interpreters and translators in Flanders. Available online at: https://knowledge-centre-translation-interpretation.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/soctolkenvertalen_eng_def.pdf.
Angermeyer, P. S. (2008). Creating monolingualism in the multilingual courtroom. Socioling. Stud. 2, 385–403. doi: 10.1558/sols.v2i3.385
Angermeyer, P. S. (2014). Monolingual ideologies and multilingual practices in small claims court: the case of Spanish-speaking arbitrators. Int. J. Multiling. 11, 430–448. doi: 10.1080/14790718.2014.944531
Balogh, K., Salaets, H., and Schoor, D.van, eds. (2016). TraiLLD: training in languages of lesser diffusion. Leuven: LannooCampus.
Bancroft, M. (2017). “The voice of compassion: exploring trauma-informed interpreting” in Ideology, ethics and policy development in public service interpreting and translation. eds. C. Valero-Garcés and R. Tipton (Bristol: Multilingual Matters), 195–219.
Barsky, R. F. (1994). Constructing a productive other. Discourse theory and the convention refugee hearing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Berg, L., and Millbank, J. (2009). Constructing the personal narratives of lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum claimants. J. Refug. Stud. 22, 195–223. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fep010
Bögner, D., Brewin, C., and Herlihy, J. (2010). Refugees’ experiences of home office interviews: a qualitative study on the disclosure of sensitive personal information. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 36, 519–535. doi: 10.1080/13691830903368329
Bowker, L. (2023). Machine translation literacy project. Open Educational Resource. Available online at: https://sites.google.com/view/machinetranslationliteracy/.
Castelló-Cogollos, R., and Monzó-Nebot, E. (2023). “Legitimized inequalities: linguistic rights and ideology/Desigualtats legitimades: drets lingüístics i ideologia. In Ideologies and language rights meet (and clash)/Interseccions (i conflictes) entre ideologies i drets lingüístics, Eds R. Castelló-Cogollos and E. Monzó-Nebot. Spec Issue, Just. Journal of Language Rights & Minorities, Revista de Drets Lingüístics i Minories 2: 7–53. doi: 10.7203/Just.2.27509
Cho, J. (2021). ‘That's not how we speak’: interpreting monolingual ideologies in courtrooms.” In “Linguistic diversity as a challenge for legal policy,” Eds A. Grey and L. Smith-Khan. Spec Issue Griffith Law Review 30: 50–70. doi: 10.1080/10383441.2021.1932234
Costa, B., Lázaro-Gutiérrez, R., and Rausch, T. (2020). “Self-care as an ethical responsibility: a pilot study on support provision for interpreters in human crises” in Non-professional translation and interpreting ethics. eds. E. Monzó-Nebot and M. Wallace, Spec issue, Translation and Interpreting Studies. 36–56. doi: 10.1075/tis.20004.cos
Council of Europe (2018). The common European framework of reference for languages learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crezee, I. H., Atkinson, D. P., Pask, R., Au, P., and Wong, S. (2015). Teaching interpreters about self-care. Int. J. Interpr. Educ. 7, 74–83.
Crezee, I. H., Jülich, S., and Hayward, M. (2011). Issues for interpreters and professionals working in refugee settings. J. Appl. Linguisti. Profe. Pract. 8, 253–273. doi: 10.1558/japl.v8i3.253
Crezee, I. H., and Lai, M. (2022). Interpreters’ resilience and self-care during pandemic restrictions in Australia and New Zealand. New Voices Transl. Stud. 27, 88–116.
d'Ardenne, P., Farmer, E., Ruaro, L., and Priebe, S. (2007). Not lost in translation: protocols for interpreting trauma-focused CBT. Behav. Cogn. Psychother. 35, 303–316. doi: 10.1017/S1352465807003591
de Bruine, G., Vredeveldt, A., and van Koppen, P. J. (2023). Culture and credibility: the assessment of asylum seekers' statements. Psychol. Crime Law, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2023.2279328
Eklöf, N., Hupli, M., and Leino-Kilpi, H. (2017). Planning focus group interviews with asylum seekers: factors related to the researcher, interpreter and asylum seekers. Nurs. Inq. 24:e12192. doi: 10.1111/nin.12192
European Parliament, and Council of the European Union. (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) no 439/2010. PE/61/2021/REV/1. Official Journal of the European Union. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2303/oj/eng.
European Parliament, and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 may 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing directive 2013/32/EU. PE/16/2024/REV/1. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401348.
European Union Agency for Asylum. (2022a). Interpreting in the asylum context. Training Catalogue. Available online at: https://euaa.europa.eu/training-catalogue/interpreting-asylum-context.
European Union Agency for Asylum (2022b). Interviewing applicants with religion-based asylum claims. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Union Agency for Asylum. (2022c). Working with an interpreter. Training Catalogue. Available online at: https://euaa.europa.eu/training-catalogue/working-interpreter.
European Union Agency for Asylum (2024). Applicants with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics: cross-cutting elements. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Union Agency for Asylum (2025). Section 3.10. Interpretation services. Available online at: https://euaa.europa.eu/asylum-report-2024/section-310-interpretation-services.
Fobear, K. (2015). "I thought we had no rights" - challenges in listening, storytelling, and representation of LGBT refugees. Stud. Soc. Just. 9, 102–117. doi: 10.26522/ssj.v9i1.1137
Giustini, D. (2024). “Women’s challenges and gender inequality implications in the UK Home Office’s streamlined asylum process: a practice-based posthuman perspective” in Gender and ethnolinguistic lawfare. eds. M. Wallace and E. Monzó-Nebot, Special issue, just. Journal of Language Rights & Minorities, Revista de Drets Lingüístics i Minories. 3, 119–153. doi: 10.7203/Just.3.28153
Government of the Netherlands. (2025) Asylum procedure. Available online at: https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy/asylum-procedure?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
Hlavac, J. (2017). Mental health interpreting guidelines for interpreters. Melbourne: Language Loop (Monash University). Available online at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571683f922482e219db7b3ae/t/5a86f0f64192028861457cda/1518792951958/Mental_Health_Interpreting_Guidelines_fo.pdf.
ILGA-Europe. (2016). Protecting the rights of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees in the reform of the common European asylum system. ILGA-Europe (ILGA-Europe). Available online at: https://www.ilga-europe.org/policy-paper/protecting-the-rights-of-lgbti-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-in-the-reform-of-the-common-european-asylum-system/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst. (2019). WI 2019/17 Horen en beslissen in zaken waarin lhbti-gerichtheid als asielmotief is aangevoerd. Available online at: https://puc.overheid.nl/ind/doc/PUC_1252386_1/1/.
Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst. (2024). Asylum procedures in the Netherlands. Available online at: https://ind.nl/en/asylum-procedures-in-the-netherlands?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst. (2025) Sexual orientation and gender identity as a reason for asylum. Background Articles. Available online at: https://ind.nl/en/about-us/background-articles/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-as-a-reason-for-asylum.
Jacobs, M. (2024). Choosing is losing: language policy and language choice acts at the asylum law firm. Lang. Policy 23, 119–145. doi: 10.1007/s10993-023-09683-2
Jacobs, M., and van Hest, E. (2025). 'Spaces of linguistic non-understanding' when 'researching multilingually': analyses from a linguistic-ethnographic perspective. Multilingua 44, 1–12. doi: 10.1515/multi-2024-0200
Jansen, S. (2023). Pride or shame? The follow-up. The new work instructions and the assessment of LGBTI asylum applications in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: COC Netherlands.
Kunreuther, L., and Rao, S. (2023). The invisible labor and ethics of interpreting. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 52, 239–256. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-091752
Lai, M., Garcia, E. G., Sudarto, B., and Skewes, J. (2024). “LGBTIQA+ multilingual terminology ”. Available online at: https://www.rainbowterminology.orgRainbowTerminology.org.
Lee, J. (2014). A pressing need for the reform of interpreting service in asylum settings: a case study of asylum appeal hearings in South Korea. J. Refug. Stud. 27, 62–81. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fet007
Maréchal, M. (2022). Se situer au « pays de nulle part ». La positionnalité en tension dans l’environnement multilingue de la zone d’attente. e-Migrinter 23, 1–13. doi: 10.4000/e-migrinter.3058
Maréchal, M. (2025). Translational state power: managing interpreters to make asylum seekers talk in the French asylum bureaucracy. Soc. Policy Admin. doi: 10.1111/spol.13121
Maryns, K. (2005). Monolingual language ideologies and code choice in the Belgian asylum procedure. Lang. Commun. 25, 299–314. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2005.03.009
Maryns, K. (2006). The asylum speaker: Language in the Belgian asylum procedure. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Maryns, K. (2013). Disclosure and (re)performance of gender-based evidence in an interpreter-mediated asylum interview. J. Socioling. 17, 661–686. doi: 10.1111/josl.12056
Monzó-Nebot, E. (2024). “The cultural roots of translation automation: revealing ideologies in machine translation” in The social impact of automating translation: An ethics of care perspective on machine translation. eds. E. Monzó-Nebot and V. Tasa-Fuster (New York, NY: Routledge), 12–37.
Mowbray, J. (2022). “Language rights and linguistic justice in international law: lost in translation?” in “Language policies for social justice,” edited by C. D. Mellinger and E. Monzó-Nebot, Special issue, just. Journal of Language Rights & Minorities, Revista de Drets Lingüístics i Minories 1, 37–68. doi: 10.7203/Just.1.25238
Ottosson, L., Angu, P., and Gustafsson, K. (2024). Mismanagement and misinterpretations in asylum interviews: perspectives from South Africa and Sweden. J. Refug. Stud. 37, 785–799. doi: 10.1093/jrs/feae054
Pöllabauer, S. (2007). “Interpreting in asylum hearings: issues of saving face” in The critical link 4. Professionalisation of interpreting in the commmunity. eds. C. Wadensjö, B. E. Dimitrova, and A.-L. Nilsson (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 39–52.
Pöllabauer, S. (2023). “Research on interpreter-mediated asylum interviews” in The Routledge handbook of public service interpreting. eds. L. Gavioli and C. Wadensjö (London: Routledge), 140–154.
Pöllabauer, S. (2024). “‘Not everyday business.’ A caseworker perspective on interpreter provision for deaf refugees and cooperation with interpreters” in Interpreting for vulnerable populations. eds. L. R. Rosendo and C. H. Martin, Special issue, just. Journal of Language Rights & Minorities, Revista de Drets Lingüístics i Minories 3, 53–94.
Pöllabauer, S., and Zwischenberger, M. B. (2025). EU-WEBPSI platform for video remote interpreting. University of Vienna. Available online at: https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:2125079.
Raad voor Rechtsbijstand. (2023). Advies herziene Gedragscode Wbtv van 11 september 2023. Available online at: https://www.bureauwbtv.nl/commissies/kwaliteitsinstituut-wbtv/afgegeven-adviezen/advies-herziene-gedragscode-wbtv/.
Raad voor Rechtsbijstand. (2025). Voorwaarden inschrijving Rbtv. Tolken & vertales. Available online at: https://www.bureauwbtv.nl/tolken-vertalers/inschrijven/voorwaarden-inschrijving-rbtv/.
Ramirez, E., and Crezee, I. H. (2024). Reflective assignments in health interpreter education: Developing an awareness of intercultural capabilities and issues. Cultus, 17, 90–127.
Raza-Sheikh, Z. (2020). “My language doesn’t have the terminology to describe who I am.” Vice. Available online at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/my-language-doesnt-have-the-terminology-to-describe-who-i-am/.
Refugee Action. (2023). Streamlined asylum processing frequently asked questions. Available online at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Streamlined-Asylum-Processing-FAQs-English.pdf.
Scheffer, T. (2001). Asylgewährung. Eine ethnographische Verfahrensanalyse. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
Selim, H., Korkman, J., Nynas, P., Pirjatanniemi, E., and Antfolk, J. (2023). A review of psycho-legal issues in credibility assessments of asylum claims based on religion. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 30, 760–788. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2116611
Selim, H., Korkman, J., Pirjatanniemi, E., and Antfolk, J. (2023). Asylum claims based on sexual orientation: a review of psycho-legal issues in credibility assessments. Psychol. Crime Law 29, 1001–1030. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2044038
Singer, S. (2021). “'How much of a lesbian are you?' Experiences of LGBT asylum seekers in immigration detention in the UK.” In Richard C. M. Mole (Ed.), Queer migration and asylum in Europe. UCL Press. 238–260. doi: 10.14324/111.9781787355811
Singureanu, D., Braun, S., Davitti, E., Figueroa, L. A. G., Pöllabauer, S., Mazzanti, E., et al. (2025). EU-WEBPSI: baseline study and needs analysis for PSI, VMI and LLDI. Available online at: https://www.webpsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Comprehensive-research-report.pdf
Smith-Khan, L. (2023a). Incorporating sociolinguistic perspectives in Australian refugee credibility assessments: the case of CRL18. J. Int. Migr. Integr. 24, 727–743. doi: 10.1007/s12134-022-00937-2
Smith-Khan, L. (2023b). “Refugee credibility assessment and the vanishing interpreter.” Language on the Move. Available online at: https://www.languageonthemove.com/refugee-credibility-assessment-and-the-vanishing-interpreter/.
UNHCR (2019). Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. UNHCR: Geneva, CH.
United Nations (1948). “Universal declaration of human rights” in Resolution 217A (III) (Paris, FR: United Nations). 217 A (III). Available online at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
United Nations. (1951). Convention relating to the status of refugees. 189 UNTS 137. United Nations general assembly. Adopted on 28 July 1951 by general assembly resolution 429 (V); entry into force on 22 April 1954. Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-relating-status-refugees.
United Nations (1966). Protocol relating to the status of refugees. Geneva, CH Adopted on 16 December 1966 by the General Assembly in resolution 2198 (XXI). United Nations.
van der Kleij, S. (2015). Interaction in Dutch asylum interviews: a corpus study of interpreter-mediated institutional discourse. Utrecht: LOT.
Veglio, M. (2024). “Linguistic and epistemic discrimination against migrants in Italian asylum procedures” in Toward inclusion and social justice in institutional translation and interpreting: revealing hidden practices of exclusion. eds. E. Monzó-Nebot and M. Lomeña-Galiano (New York, NY: Routledge), 47–76.
Vissers, P. (2018). IND begrijpt de homo-vluchteling niet. Trouw. Available online at: https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/ind-begrijpt-homo-vluchteling-niet~b974e1d6/?referrer=https://www.google.com/.
Keywords: LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers, trauma-informed interpreting, interpreter training, interpreter selection, interpreter oversight, LGBTIQ+ applicants, interpreting protocols
Citation: Crezee IH, Monzó-Nebot E, Ramirez E and Sanders J (2025) Interpreting for LGBTIQ+ asylum seekers in the Netherlands: challenges and policy recommendations. Front. Commun. 10:1591277. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1591277
Edited by:
Miranda Lai, RMIT University, AustraliaReviewed by:
Laura Smith-Khan, University of New England, AustraliaCopyright © 2025 Crezee, Monzó-Nebot, Ramirez and Sanders. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ineke H. Crezee, aWNyZXplZUBhdXQuYWMubno=