In the context of negative credibility assessment, which term describes the overall coherence and believability of the applicant's claims?

The term that best describes the overall coherence and believability of an applicant's claims in the context of a negative credibility assessment is plausibility. Plausibility refers to the inherent likelihood that the individual’s story is believable and consistent with what is generally known or accepted. It encompasses both how the claims fit together logically and how they align with external facts or context, which is crucial in determining whether the applicant's narrative appears credible.

Plausibility is particularly important because an applicant may present detailed accounts and consistent statements; however, if those accounts are fundamentally implausible, they can lead to a negative credibility assessment. Therefore, even if an individual’s story is consistent in terms of facts and chronological order, if it lacks plausibility, it undermines the overall credence of their asylum claim. This highlights the integral role of plausibility in assessing the authenticity and reliability of the claims made by applicants.

In contrast, while detail and consistency also play important roles in credibility assessments, they do not fully capture the broader judgment involved in assessing whether the narrative is believable as a whole. Explanation, while relevant, refers more to the rationale provided for discrepancies or gaps in the narrative, rather than the overarching coherence of the claims themselves.