Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication

1
Refugee RouletteDisparities in Asylum
Adjudication

• Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz
• and Philip G. Schrag

2
Affirmative Asylum Applications
3
Size of Databases
4
The 15 Asylee-producing Countries (APCs)

• Albania
• Armenia
• Cameroon
• China
• Colombia
• Ethiopia
• Guinea
• Haiti

• India
• Liberia
• Mauritania
• Pakistan
• Russia
• Togo
• Venezuela
• Not included in Asylum Office Studies

5
Our Benchmark for Measuring Disparity

• For the data set in question (as defined for each
  study), did an adjudicator render a decision
  favorable to the asylum applicant at a rate that
  was either more than 50 higher or more than 50
  lower than the rate of such decisions by
  adjudicators from the same office?

6
Regional Asylum Offices
7
Asylum Office Regions A and H Grant Rates in APC
Cases (Officers with At Least 50 APC Cases)
8
Deviations from Region A Mean for Strong Claim
(APC) Countries(2 of 31 officers deviate from
the office mean by more than 50)
9
Deviations from Region H Mean for Strong Claim
(APC) Countries(27 of 53 Officers deviate by
more than 50)
10
Grant Rates and Percentage of Officers (with at
Least 50 cases) who Deviate by More than 50
from Regional APC RatesN 132,754 cases
11
Asylum Officer Regions, Single Country Charts

• Grant Rates and Deviations from Regional
  One-Country Means, Officers with At Least 25 Cases

12
China
13
Region C Grant Rates (China)
14
Region C Officers Deviations from Regional
China Mean (3/42 Deviate by More than 50)
15
Region E Grant Rates
16
Region E (which shows less consistency in Chinese
adjudications than Region C). Officers
Deviations from Regional China Mean (17/57
Deviate by More than 50)
17
Some Regions Have Much Less Consistency Among
Asylum Officers
18
Region H Grant Rates - China
19
Region H Officers Deviations from Regional
China Mean
20
Grant Rates in China Cases, By Asylum Office
RegionN 38,748 cases
21
Percentage of Officers Deviating from Regional
China Mean Grant Rates, By Region, Officers with
At Least 50 China Cases (Regions B and D Did Not
Have Enough Such Officers to Chart) N 37,909
cases
22
China Grant Rates All 146 officers who had at
least 100 adjudications
23
And Its Not Just China
24
Region C India Grant Rates
25
Region C India 15 of 39 Officers Deviate by
More than 50
26
The Immigration Courts
27
Grant Rates for APC Cases, 2000-2004, in
Immigration Courts with More than 1500 Asylum
Cases
28
Grant Rates of New York Immigration Judges, APC
Cases, Judges with at Least 100 APC Cases
29
New York Immigration Court Judges Deviations
from the New York Mean, APC Cases, Judges with
100 or More APC Cases (9 of 31 judges deviate by
more than 50)
30
Albanian Cases New York Immigration Court Grant
Rates, Judges with at least 50 Albanian Cases
2000-2004 (2173 cases)
31
New York Immigration Court Judges Deviations
from the New York Mean for Albanian Cases
32
Indian Cases San Francisco Immigration Court
Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Indian Cases
2000-2004 (3114 cases)
33
San Francisco Immigration Court Judges
Deviations from the San Francisco Mean for
Indian Cases (3114 Cases)
34
Chinese Cases Los Angeles Immigration Court
Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Chinese
Cases 2000-2004 (2579 cases)
35
Los Angeles Immigration Court Judges Deviations
from the Los Angeles Mean for Chinese Cases
36
Colombian Cases Miami Immigration Court Grant
Rates, Judges with at least 50 Colombian Cases
2000-2004 (8214 cases)
37
Miami Immigration Court Judges Deviations from
the Miami Mean for Colombian Cases
38
Effect of Representation on Grant Rate
39

40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Grant Rates by Gender and Prior Work Experience
44
Grant Rate by Gender, Representation, and DHS/INS
Experience
45
The Board of Immigration Appeals
46
All Immigration Cases Appealed from Board of
Immigration Appeals to Federal Courts of Appeals
Appeals to US courts
1000
800
600
400
200
. . . . .Cases/month appealed to circuits
47
Percentage of BIA Asylum Decisions Favorable to
Applicants, By Type of Decision, FY 98-00 and FY
03-05
48
BIA Asylum Grants and Remands as a Percentage of
all Cases (Excludes Cases Coded by BIA as Not
Favoring Either Applicant or Government)

49
BIA Grants and Remands, Showing Representation
(N 9365 Appeals)
50
The Drop in the Rate of BIA Decisions Favorable
to Asylum Applicants from APCs
51
The Drop in Rate of Decisions Favorable to Asylum
Applicants from Individual APCs, FY 2001 vs. 2002
52
The U.S. Courts of Appeals
53
Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 3d Cir
Judges with at least 25 Cases, 2004-05 (N784
votes cast)
54
Individual Judges Deviations from 12 Circuit
Mean Rate of Votes to Remand, 3d Cir., 2004-05
(Judges with 25 or More Votes)(Only 1 of 16
Judges Deviates from Circuit Mean by More than
50)
55
3d Circuit Remand Vote Rates by Party of
Appointing President, 25 cases
56
Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 6th Cir
Judges with at least 23 Cases, 2004-05 (N385
votes cast)
57
Individual Judges Deviations from 11.4 Circuit
Mean Rate of Votes to Remand, 6th Cir., 2004-05
(Judges with 23 or More Votes)(7 of 13 Judges
Deviate from Circuit Mean by More than 50)
58
6th Circuit Remand Vote Rates by Party of
Appointing President, 23 cases
59
Remand Rates by Circuits, all 4215 asylum
appeals, 2004-05
60
Federal Courts of Appeals Votes to Reverse
and/or Remand (Asylum Cases in Red, Civil Cases
in Blue) (Prisoner Cases Excluded)
61
Remand Rates by Circuits, the 2361 asylum appeals
from asylee-producing countries, 2004-05