Bordering from within: gendered credibility and institutional fragmentation in asylum governance in Sicily

This article examines how Italian asylum institutions produce gendered and racialised hierarchies of credibility and vulnerability. Drawing on an original mixed-methods dataset of 80 case files of female applicants and 76 expert interviews conducted in Sicily, the analysis compares first-instance decisions by Territorial Commissions (TCs) with judicial rulings on appeal. While TCs function as suspicion-driven border sites privileging narrative coherence, courts adopt trauma-informed reasoning that more consistently recognises gender-based persecution. The study conceptualises credibility and vulnerability as institutional constructs that shape epistemic authority through everyday bordering. Beyond institutional asymmetries, the analysis reveals how bordering practices intersect with differentiated racialised scripts: while West-Central African women are predominantly positioned within humanitarian and victimhood narratives (e.g. trafficking), North African applicants are frequently reframed through culturalised familial idioms. These divergent representations lead to unequal credibility outcomes and stratified access to protection. By highlighting the discrepancy between administrative and judicial phases, the paper demonstrates how the legal recognition of gender-based violence remains contingent upon the intersection of institutional discretion and the applicant’s national background.