Gatekeeping in asylum interviews: institutional bias and narrative inequality in South Korea’s refugee screening process

Abstract This study examines the structural biases and narrative inequalities in South Korea’s refugee screening process, focusing on the concept of gatekeeping. While previous research has concentrated on legal and institutional analyses, this study addresses micro-level dynamics, particularly the asylum interview procedures and interpretation issues. Using testimonies from victims of a 2015–6 fabrication case, where Arabic-speaking asylum seekers’ interview records were falsified, this research reveals that such incidents are rooted not in individual misconduct but in systemic flaws aimed at maintaining low refugee recognition rates and procedural efficiency. The study identifies three key factors undermining the fairness of asylum interviews: institutional bias, asymmetry of linguistic resources, and narrative inequality. By connecting interview-level dynamics to broader bureaucratic and political pressures, this study reveals how gatekeeping produces structural risks of refoulement. Although grounded in South Korea, the findings offer insights into similar patterns across other asylum systems.