Applicants seeking asylum in South Africa are frequently met with rejection at the initial stage of refugee status determination. These outcomes are often the result of procedural errors, credibility issues, and misunderstandings of the applicable legal standards under South African and international refugee law. This memorandum outlines the common mistakes committed during the asylum process, distinguishes between the different forms of rejection under the Refugees Act 130 of 1998 (as amended), and explains the available remedies following a negative decision by the Refugee Status Determination Officer (RSDO), the Refugee Appeal Authority (RAA), or the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs (SCRA).
COMMON ERRORS IN ASYLUM APPLICATIONS
Inconsistent or Incoherent Narratives
One of the most frequent causes of rejection is a lack of internal consistency in the applicant’s account. Contradictions between the oral interview and the written statement, illogical timelines, or failure to recall basic facts about alleged persecution often result in adverse credibility findings. An applicant’s failure to establish a coherent, plausible personal story substantially weakens the claim.
Lack of Interview Preparation and Legal Orientation
In many European asylum systems, such as in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, asylum seekers are provided with legal orientation sessions or are assisted by refugee support organisations before their substantive interviews.
These sessions cover:
The legal definition of a refugee;
The importance of credibility and consistency;
The procedure for the asylum interview;
The consequences of incorrect or incomplete answers;
The right to legal assistance or interpreters.
In contrast, South Africa does not have a pre-interview program to educate asylum seekers on their rights and responsibilities under the
Refugees Act, nor are applicants systematically assisted in preparing for their interviews. This results in a profound disadvantage for many applicants, who face trained and legally literate RSDOs without any meaningful understanding of the process. Uninformed applicants may unintentionally provide inconsistent, confused, or incomplete statements; not because their claims are false, but because they are unfamiliar with what information is relevant and how to articulate their experiences effectively. This systemic gap contributes to unjust rejections and undermines the fairness of the asylum system and it is for that purpose that we conduct workshops to fill that gap.
Plagiarized or Copied Narratives An increasingly observed problem is the submission of asylum claims that are directly copied from other applicants or compiled by unscrupulous third parties offering ‘template’ narratives. RSDOs are trained to detect such duplication, and many use internal databases to identify identical or near- identical stories. These “copy- and-paste” accounts severely damage credibility and are often categorized as fraudulent or abusive under section 24(3)(b) of the Refugees Act. Once this classification is made, the case may be referred to the SCRA rather than the RAA, with significantly fewer avenues for appeal. Refugee applicants must ensure that their narrative is authentic, personal, and reflective of their actual experience of persecution or fear thereof.
Lack of Supporting Documentation
Although asylum is a humanitarian prot ection that does not strictly require documentation, applicants are encouraged to submit any available evidence that corroborates their claims. This may include police reports, medical records, political affiliation documen t s, photographs, newspaper articles, arrest warrants, or witness statements. Failure to provide such documentation when it is reasonably obtainable can be interpreted as a lack of credibility or substance.
Failure to Establish a Nexus to a
Convention Ground
Under section 3 of the Refugees Act, a person qualifies for refugee status only if they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one or more of the following grounds:
Race;
Religion;
Nationality;
Member ship in a particular social group;
Political opinion.
Applications premised solely on poverty, economic instability, unemployment, Family issues or general violence not specifically directed at the applicant may be considered outside the scope of the Act. Applicants must draw a clear link between their persecution and one of the protected grounds.
Delays in Lodging the Application Asylum seekers are expected to apply for protection within a reasonable time after entering the Republic. Undue delays in approaching a Refugee Reception Office, or residing in South Africa without legal documentation for long periods, can cast doubt on the genuineness of the claim and result in rejection as either abusive or manifestly unfounded. While delays may be excusable in some circumstances (e.g., trauma, fear of authorities, illness), they must be reasonably explained during the interview.
RSDO REJECTIONS AND THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE BODY
The Refugee Status Determination Officer (RSDO), appointed under section 8 of the Act, has the authority to grant or reject asylum applications. When rejecting an application, the RSDO categorizes the claim into one of the following three types, which determines the next procedural step:
Unfounded Applications – Referred to the Refugee Appeal Authority (RAA)
Where the RSDO deems the applicant’s claim to be unfounded is when, while not wholly implausible or fraudulent, it does not meet the legal threshold for refugee status. The applicant has the right to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Authority of South Africa (RAA)
under section 24A. This is a de novo appeal, which means the RAA can hear the matter afresh, including taking oral evidence and considering new documentation. The applicant must lodge the appeal within 10 working days using the prescribed form and process. 2.2 Manifestly Unfounded, Abusive, or Fraudulent Applications – Referred to the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs (SCRA)
Where the RSDO determines that the claim is manifestly unfounded, abusive, or fraudulent, it must refer the file to the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs (SCRA) under section 24(3)(b) of the Act for confirmation or reversal of the finding. Examples include:
Claims clearly outside the Refugees Act (e.g., purely economic migrants);
Recycled, copied, or
fictitious narratives;
Multiple contradictory asylum applications;
Fabricated documents. The SCRA’s role is not to re-hear the entire claim but to determine whether the RSDO followed proper procedures and reached a reasonable decision. No further appeal exists from a SCRA confirmation, but judicial review remains available.
WHAT TO DO IF THE APPLICATION IS REJECTED BY BOTH THE RSDO AND RAA OR SCRA
If the asylum application is rejected by the RSDO and subsequently upheld by either the RAA or the SCRA, the applicant is not necessarily without recourse. The following legal remedies are available:
Judicial Review in the High Court In terms of section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), applicants may bring a review application to the High Court within 180 days after internal remedies have been exhausted. Review grounds include:
Procedural unfairness or failure to give a hearing;
Failure to consider relevant evidence or improper disregard of corroborative
documents;
Misapplication of the
definition of a refugee;
Predetermination or bias by the RSDO or appellate body;
Failure to consult the UNHCR where required under section 24(3)(d).
It is crucial that the review application is launched without delay and supported by a detailed founding affidavit, clearly setting out the procedural irregularities and legal errors.
Engaging Legal Counsel
Given the complexity of refugee law and administrative litigation, applicants are strongly advised to seek assistance from an immigration attorney, refugee law clinic, or public interest organisation. Legal professionals can assist in compiling the record, preparing affidavits, and arguing the case in court.
Avoiding Illegal Presence and Detention
Following a final rejection, the asylum seeker’s Section 22 permit may expire or be cancelled. Applicants must remain aware of their legal status and seek legal protection promptly to avoid becoming undocumented and vulnerable to arrest, detention, or deportation under the Immigration Act.
DENIS SINGWA (LLB) REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS RIGHTS ACTIVIST
