U.S. Asylum System
Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help Ensure Quality in the Asylum Adjudication Process, but Challenges Remain Gao ID: GAO-08-935 September 25, 2008Each year, tens of thousands of noncitizens apply in the United States for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution. Asylum officers (AO) in the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and immigration judges (IJ) in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) assess applicants' credibility and eligibility. GAO was asked to evaluate aspects of the asylum system. This report addresses the extent to which quality assurance mechanisms have been designed to ensure adjudications' integrity, how key factors affect AOs' adjudications, and what key factors affect IJs' adjudications. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed agency documents, policies, and procedures; surveyed all AOs, supervisory AOs, and IJs; and visited three of the eight Asylum Offices. These offices varied in size and percentage of cases granted asylum. Results of these visits provided additional information but were not projectable.
USCIS and EOIR have designed quality assurance mechanisms to help ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, but some can be improved. While 75 percent of AO survey respondents reported that basic training prepared them at least moderately well to adjudicate cases, they also reported that despite weekly training, they needed additional training to help them detect fraud, conduct security checks, and assess the credibility of asylum seekers. The Asylum Division does not consistently solicit AOs' and supervisory AOs' input on a range of their training needs. Without this, the Asylum Division lacks key information for making training decisions. The Asylum Division has designed a quality review framework to ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions. Although supervisors review all cases and headquarters reviews certain cases, other local quality assurance reviews rarely took place in three of the eight Asylum Offices primarily due to competing priorities. By fully implementing its quality review framework, the Asylum Division would better identify deficiencies, examine their root causes, and take action. The majority of IJ survey respondents reported that training enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, although the majority also reported having additional training needs. EOIR expanded its training program in 2006, particularly for newly hired IJs, and annually solicits IJs' views on their training needs. Asylum officers reported challenges in identifying fraud and assessing applicants' credibility, as well as time constraints, as key factors affecting their adjudications. The majority of AO survey respondents reported it moderately or very difficult to identify various types of fraud, despite mechanisms designed to help identify fraud and assess credibility. Further, assistance from other federal entities to AOs in assessing the authenticity of asylum claims has been hindered in part by resource limitations and competing priorities. With respect to time constraints, 65 percent of AOs and 73 percent of supervisory AOs reported that AOs have insufficient time to thoroughly adjudicate cases--that is, in a manner consistent with procedures and training--while management's views were mixed. The Asylum Division set a productivity standard equating to 4 hours per case in 1999 without empirical data. Without empirical data on the time it takes to thoroughly adjudicate a case, the Asylum Division is not best positioned to know if its productivity standard reflects the time AOs need for thorough adjudications. Verifying fraud, assessing credibility, and time constraints are also key factors affecting IJs' adjudications. IJ survey respondents cited verifying fraud (88 percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as a moderately or very challenging aspect of asylum adjudications. Responding to 2006 Attorney General reforms, EOIR implemented a program to which IJs can refer instances of suspected fraud and receive information to aid in fraud detection. Eighty-two percent of IJs reported time limitations as moderately or very challenging aspects of their adjudications. EOIR has detailed IJs to courts with high caseloads and plans to hire additional staff, but it is too soon to know the extent to which additional staff will alleviate IJs' time challenges.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-935, U.S. Asylum System: Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help Ensure Quality in the Asylum Adjudication Process, but Challenges Remain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-9353
entitled 'U.S. Asylum System: Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help
Ensure Quality in the Asylum Adjudication Process, but Challenges
Remain' which was released on September 26, 2008.
On October 2, 2008, the PDF file was revised to correct figures 2, 5,
6, 8, 10, 12, and 14, which initially had incorrect information or did
not correspond with the appropriate figure title.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
U.S. Asylum System:
Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help Ensure Quality in the Asylum
Adjudication Process, but Challenges Remain:
GAO-08-935:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-935, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Each year, tens of thousands of noncitizens apply in the United States
for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or
fear persecution. Asylum officers (AO) in the Department of Homeland
Security‘s (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and
immigration judges (IJ) in the Department of Justice‘s (DOJ) Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) assess applicants‘ credibility and
eligibility. GAO was asked to evaluate aspects of the asylum system.
This report addresses the extent to which quality assurance mechanisms
have been designed to ensure adjudications‘ integrity, how key factors
affect AOs‘ adjudications, and what key factors affect IJs‘
adjudications. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed agency documents,
policies, and procedures; surveyed all AOs, supervisory AOs, and IJs;
and visited three of the eight Asylum Offices. These offices varied in
size and percentage of cases granted asylum. Results of these visits
provided additional information but were not projectable.
What GAO Found:
USCIS and EOIR have designed quality assurance mechanisms to help
ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, but some can be improved.
While 75 percent of AO survey respondents reported that basic training
prepared them at least moderately well to adjudicate cases, they also
reported that despite weekly training, they needed additional training
to help them detect fraud, conduct security checks, and assess the
credibility of asylum seekers. The Asylum Division does not
consistently solicit AOs‘ and supervisory AOs‘ input on a range of
their training needs. Without this, the Asylum Division lacks key
information for making training decisions. The Asylum Division has
designed a quality review framework to ensure the quality and
consistency of asylum decisions. Although supervisors review all cases
and headquarters reviews certain cases, other local quality assurance
reviews rarely took place in three of the eight Asylum Offices
primarily due to competing priorities. By fully implementing its
quality review framework, the Asylum Division would better identify
deficiencies, examine their root causes, and take action. The majority
of IJ survey respondents reported that training enhanced their ability
to adjudicate asylum cases, although the majority also reported having
additional training needs. EOIR expanded its training program in 2006,
particularly for newly hired IJs, and annually solicits IJs‘ views on
their training needs.
Asylum officers reported challenges in identifying fraud and assessing
applicants' credibility, as well as time constraints, as key factors
affecting their adjudications. The majority of AO survey respondents
reported it moderately or very difficult to identify various types of
fraud, despite mechanisms designed to help identify fraud and assess
credibility. Further, assistance from other federal entities to AOs in
assessing the authenticity of asylum claims has been hindered in part
by resource limitations and competing priorities. With respect to time
constraints, 65 percent of AOs and 73 percent of supervisory AOs
reported that AOs have insufficient time to thoroughly adjudicate
cases”that is, in a manner consistent with procedures and training”
while management‘s views were mixed. The Asylum Division set a
productivity standard equating to 4 hours per case in 1999 without
empirical data. Without empirical data on the time it takes to
thoroughly adjudicate a case, the Asylum Division is not best
positioned to know if its productivity standard reflects the time AOs
need for thorough adjudications.
Verifying fraud, assessing credibility, and time constraints are also
key factors affecting IJs‘ adjudications. IJ survey respondents cited
verifying fraud (88 percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as
a moderately or very challenging aspect of asylum adjudications.
Responding to 2006 Attorney General reforms, EOIR implemented a program
to which IJs can refer instances of suspected fraud and receive
information to aid in fraud detection. Eighty-two percent of IJs
reported time limitations as moderately or very challenging aspects of
their adjudications. EOIR has detailed IJs to courts with high
caseloads and plans to hire additional staff, but it is too soon to
know the extent to which additional staff will alleviate IJs‘ time
challenges.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Asylum Division, among other things, solicit
information from officers on their training needs, develop a plan to
implement local quality reviews in all offices, and determine how much
time is needed to adjudicate a case in a manner consistent with
procedures and training. DHS and USCIS concurred with GAO‘s
recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-935]. For more
information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8777 or
stanar@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Asylum Division and EOIR Have Designed Quality Assurance Mechanisms
to Help Ensure the Integrity of Asylum Adjudications, but Some Can Be
Improved:
Challenges in Assessing the Authenticity of Claims and Time Constraints
Are Key Factors Affecting Asylum Officers' Adjudications:
Key Factors Affecting Immigration Judge Adjudications Are Similar to
Those Identified by Asylum Officers:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers:
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum Officers:
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges:
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit Methodology:
Appendix V: Asylum Adjudication Process:
Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR Caseload and Staffing
Information:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Asylum Officers Reporting When in Their Career as an Asylum
Officer It Would Be, or Would Have Been, Moderately or Very Useful to
Observe Skilled Interviewers:
Table 2: Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey
Respondents' Views on the Time Asylum Officers Need to Complete an
Asylum Case:
Table 3: Authorized and Available Staffing Levels for Asylum Officers,
Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Table 4: Authorized and Onboard Staffing Levels for Immigration Judges,
Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Steps in the DHS Asylum Process:
Figure 2: Steps in the DOJ Asylum Process:
Figure 3: Topics Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey
Respondents Most Frequently Identified as Areas in Which Asylum
Officers Moderately or Greatly Needed Additional Training:
Figure 4: Immigration Judge Survey Respondents' Views on Topics for
Which They Reported a Moderate or Great Need for Additional Training:
Figure 5: Types of Fraud That Asylum Officer Survey Respondents
Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify:
Figure 6: Percentage of Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Who Reported
Significant Challenges to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More
of the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year:
Figure 7: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on Individuals Who
Pose a Risk to National Security or Public Safety:
Figure 8: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on an Applicant's
Eligibility for Asylum:
Figure 9: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who
Reported Aspects of Adjudicating Asylum Cases to Be Moderately or Very
Challenging:
Figure 10: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey
Respondents Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify:
Figure 11: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey
Respondents Reported as Presenting a Challenge in Some or All of the
Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year:
Figure 12: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who
Reported Impediments to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More of
the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year:
Figure 13: Asylum Division Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years
2002-2007:
Figure 14: EOIR Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Abbreviations:
AO: asylum officer:
AOBTC: Asylum Officer Basic Training Course:
BIA: Board of Immigration Appeals:
CCD: Consular Consolidated Database:
DACS: Deportable Alien Control System:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
EOIR: Executive Office for Immigration Review:
FDL: Forensic Document Laboratory:
FDNS: Office of Fraud Detection and National Security:
FDNS-IO: Office of Fraud Detection and National Security immigration
officer:
FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982:
FPC: Fraud Prevention Coordinator:
IBIS: Interagency Border Inspection System:
ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
IJ: immigration judge:
NACARA: Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act:
NAIJ: National Association of Immigration Judges:
QA/T: Quality Assurance and Training Coordinator:
RAPS: Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System:
State: Department of State:
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
US-VISIT: U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 25, 2008:
The Honorable Steve King:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
House of Representatives:
Each year, tens of thousands of individuals representing over 100
nationalities apply for asylum in the United States. U.S. immigration
law provides that noncitizens who are in this country--regardless of
whether they entered legally or illegally--may be granted humanitarian
protection in the form of asylum if they demonstrate that they cannot
return to their home country because they have a well-founded fear of
persecution.[Footnote 1] Federal adjudicators--asylum officers in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and immigration judges in the Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice
(DOJ)--assess whether asylum applicants' claims are legitimate and meet
the eligibility criteria for asylum.
Asylum decisions can carry serious consequences. Granting asylum to an
applicant with a genuine claim provides protection from being returned
to a country where the individual's freedom or life could be
threatened. On the other hand, granting asylum to an individual with a
fraudulent claim jeopardizes the integrity of the asylum system by
enabling the individual to remain in the United States, apply for
certain benefits such as a Social Security card, and pursue a path to
citizenship. In the worst case scenario, this could pose a threat to
our national security or public safety. The 1993 bombing of the World
Trade Center, the 1993 killings of CIA employees, and a plot to bomb
New York landmarks were all undertaken by individuals who had applied
for asylum. Although none of these individuals was granted asylum, the
attacks of September 11, 2001, have heightened fears that terrorists
might enter the United States with false documents, file fraudulent
asylum claims, and become embedded in the U.S. population.
The very nature of the asylum system puts adjudicators in the position
of trying to make quality decisions with imperfect information. Asylum
law states that testimonial information alone can be sufficient for
asylum applicants to meet the burden of proof for establishing asylum
eligibility, in part because applicants may not be able to present
documents if they fled their country of persecution without them, came
from countries where documentary evidence was not available, or fled
with fraudulent documents to hide their true identity. As such,
adjudicators must make decisions at times without documentation to
support or refute an applicant's claim. Furthermore, economic
incentives for a better life in the United States can make it
attractive for aliens to fraudulently apply for asylum status and,
according to some academic journals and policy reports, fraudulent
asylum claims are easy to make and difficult to detect. Together, these
factors create a challenging environment in which adjudicators must
attempt to reach the best decisions they can.
You requested that we review aspects of the asylum system. This report
addresses the following questions:
* To what extent have quality assurance mechanisms been designed within
the U.S. asylum system to ensure the integrity of the adjudication
process?
* How do key factors affect asylum officers' adjudication of asylum
cases?
* What key factors affect immigration judges' adjudication of asylum
cases?
To address the first two questions, we reviewed applicable laws,
regulations, and agency documents, including asylum adjudication
policies and procedures, asylum officer training materials, and fraud
referral data. We compared USCIS and EOIR quality-assurance mechanisms
with criteria in GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government. [Footnote 2] We also reviewed governmental and
nongovernmental reports and academic journals on asylum issues. In
addition, we surveyed all 256 asylum officers and all 56 supervisory
asylum officers who were on board as of September 30, 2006, to obtain
their views on quality assurance mechanisms and factors that affect
asylum officers' ability to adjudicate asylum cases. We obtained a 74
percent and 77 percent response rate, respectively, from the asylum
officers and supervisors.[Footnote 3] (See app. I and app. II,
respectively, for the surveys we sent to asylum officers and
supervisory asylum officers and their aggregate responses.) To gain a
better understanding of asylum adjudications, we visited three USCIS
Asylum Offices--Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. The views we
obtained at these three offices may not be generalized to all eight
Asylum Offices. However, because we selected these offices based on
their diversity in size (based on the number of asylum officers and
cases adjudicated), variation in the percentage of cases granted
asylum, and disparate geographic location, they provided us with an
overview and perspective of the asylum process as well as potential
challenges facing asylum officers. At these offices, we conducted
semistructured interviews with Asylum Office Directors and Deputy
Directors, quality assurance and training coordinators, Fraud Detection
and National Security immigration officers, and selected asylum
officers and supervisory asylum officers; and observed interviews that
asylum officers conducted with asylum applicants. In addition, we
interviewed the asylum officer representative to the American
Federation of Government Employees. We also interviewed the Directors
of the other five Asylum Offices as well as headquarters officials from
USCIS's Asylum Division and Office of Fraud Detection and National
Security. To further our understanding of federal efforts to address
fraud in the asylum system, we attended the Asylum Division's December
2007 Fraud Prevention Conference. Finally, we interviewed DHS officials
in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Forensic
Document Laboratory regarding document verification and Identity and
Benefit Fraud Branch regarding asylum investigations. We interviewed
officials in the Department of State (State) regarding their role in
providing information that may help adjudicators distinguish between
genuine and fraudulent asylum claims.
To address the third question and further examine the first question in
the context of the immigration courts, we surveyed all 207 immigration
judges who were on board as of September 30, 2006, and obtained a 77
percent response rate[Footnote 4]. (See app. III for the survey we sent
to immigration judges and their aggregate responses.) We reviewed EOIR
documents and reports, including Statistical Yearbooks and the
Immigration Judge Benchbook. We reviewed the Attorney General's 2006
reforms directed to the immigration courts and information from EOIR
regarding its implementation of the reforms. We also interviewed EOIR
headquarters officials. To further our understanding of factors
affecting immigration judges' asylum adjudications, we interviewed
representatives of the National Association of Immigration Judges. We
also observed court proceedings at the Los Angeles immigration court,
which included hearings on asylum cases, to enhance our understanding
of the role of immigration judges. To obtain an additional perspective
on factors that affect asylum adjudicators--both asylum officers and
immigration judges--we interviewed ICE Assistant Chief Counsels (also
known as ICE trial attorneys) associated with immigration courts in Los
Angeles and San Francisco, California, and New York City, New York.
To provide additional information, we also reviewed Asylum Division as
well as immigration judge caseload data for fiscal years 2002 through
2007. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed existing
information about the data systems, analyzed the data for obvious
errors in accuracy or completeness, and compared the data to other
published reports. We determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable for presenting overall trends in caseload.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through
September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix IV contains more details about our survey and site-visit
methodology.
Results in Brief:
To help ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, the Asylum
Division has designed training programs and quality reviews and EOIR
has designed training programs, but some of these mechanisms can be
improved. USCIS's Asylum Division provides centralized training to
asylum officers and supervisors and directs local Asylum Offices to
provide weekly decentralized training. Seventy-five percent of the 171
asylum officers who responded to our survey and 14 of the 26
supervisors who had attended supervisory training at the time of our
survey reported that the centralized training they received prepared
them moderately or very well for their roles in adjudicating asylum
cases. Nevertheless, most asylum officer and supervisor respondents
also reported areas in which asylum officers needed better or
additional training to improve their ability to adjudicate cases such
as in fraud detection and interviewing and assessing credibility. In
addition, 88 percent of the asylum officers reported that observing
skilled interviewers would help improve asylum officers' interviewing
skills, yet 53 percent said they had not had this opportunity. Asylum
officers not only thought it would be moderately or very useful during
their first year as an asylum officer (98 percent of those who said it
would be useful to observe skilled interviewers held this view), but 71
percent who reported the experience would be useful said it would be
moderately or very useful during their second year on the job, and 39
percent reported it would be moderately or very useful between their
3rd and 5th years. Standards for internal control in the federal
government state that federal agencies should ensure that management
provides needed training to staff. Providing additional opportunities
to observe skilled interviewers could improve asylum officers' ability
to elicit information during the applicant interview to help
distinguish between a genuine and fraudulent claim. The Asylum Division
also does not have a framework for soliciting asylum officers' and
supervisory asylum officers' views on their training needs in a
structured and consistent manner, which would help guide headquarters
and local decisions about what training to provide and whether it is
needed in all offices. Surveying agency employees about their training
needs and systematically considering them is a best human-capital
practice among effective organizations.[Footnote 5] Internal control
standards also require that federal agencies design controls to assure
that ongoing monitoring occurs in the course of normal agency
operations. According to the Asylum Division, a "particularly high
level" of quality is demanded in asylum decisions to protect the
integrity of the legal immigration process and to avoid potentially
serious consequences that could result if an applicant is wrongfully
returned to his or her home country or an applicant who poses a threat
to the United States is permitted to stay. As such, it has designed a
quality review framework to ensure the quality and consistency of
asylum decisions that includes supervisory review, local quality
assurance personnel review, and headquarters quality review. However,
although local quality assurance personnel routinely conducted reviews
of a sample of asylum officers' decisions in five of the eight Asylum
Offices, they did not routinely do so in the remaining three. In two of
these offices, competing work demands impeded conducting these quality
reviews of asylum officers' decisions, while in the third office the
quality assurance position was vacant. In addition, although the
position description for quality assurance personnel included
responsibilities for observing and evaluating interviews the asylum
officers conduct, local quality assurance personnel in the three
offices we visited told us they did not do this, or did this rarely,
because of other work demands. By more fully implementing its quality
review framework, the Asylum Division would be in a better position to
identify deficiencies, examine the root causes of deficiencies, and
take corrective action, such as addressing deficiencies through
training. Although the majority of immigration judges who responded to
our survey reported that EOIR's training and professional development
opportunities enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the
majority also reported needing more training in several areas,
including identifying fraud. In response to Attorney General reforms,
EOIR expanded its training program in 2006 to provide additional
training, primarily for new immigration judges to, among other things,
increase the time immigration judges spend observing veteran
immigration judges from 1 week to 4 weeks. In addition, EOIR solicits
input from immigration judges on their training needs on an annual
basis. Unlike asylum officers' decisions, immigration judges' decisions
are not reviewed by a supervisor. Rather, EOIR has an appeals board
that reviews immigration judges' decisions if they are appealed.
Challenges in assessing the authenticity of claims--that is,
identifying fraud and assessing applicants' credibility--and time
constraints are key factors affecting asylum officers' asylum
adjudications. Many asylum officers reported difficulties carrying out
their fraud-related responsibilities. For example, 73 percent of asylum
officer survey respondents reported it moderately or very difficult to
identify document fraud. In addition, the majority of asylum officers
reported significant challenges to assessing credibility in about half
or more of the cases they adjudicated in the past year. For example, 73
percent reported that insufficient time to prepare and conduct research
prior to the interview presented such a challenge. Asylum officers
reported facing these challenges despite mechanisms USCIS designed to
help asylum officers identify fraud and assess applicants' credibility,
such as identity and security check requirements and fraud prevention
teams in Asylum Offices. Federal entities outside USCIS's Asylum
Division and Office of Fraud Detection and National Security also have
a role in combating fraud and confirming the validity of claims, such
as authenticating documents or providing overseas information about an
applicant. However, the Forensic Document Laboratory, overseas offices
within State and USCIS, and ICE investigations have been hindered in
providing assistance to asylum officers due in part to these
organizations lacking resources and having competing priorities,
according to officials from these agencies. Sixty-five percent of
asylum officers and 73 percent of supervisors who responded to our
survey indicated that the time asylum officers have available is
insufficient to conduct adjudications that are thorough--that is, in a
manner consistent with procedures and training--given the productivity
standard they are to meet as part of their performance work plan. In
contrast, views among Asylum Division headquarters officials and Asylum
Office Directors were mixed regarding whether asylum officers have
sufficient time to complete a case. Furthermore, adjudication
requirements, such as added identity and security checks, have
increased, while the productivity standard has remained unchanged since
the Asylum Division established it in 1999 without empirical data. We
have reported that time studies are generally beneficial in that they
provide quantitative information that can be used to create objective
and defensible measures of workload.[Footnote 6] Having empirical data
on which to base the asylum officers' productivity standard would put
the Asylum Division in a better position to know whether asylum
officers have the time needed to conduct thorough asylum adjudications.
Challenges related to fraud, assessing applicants' credibility, and
time constraints are also key factors that affect immigration judges'
asylum adjudications. Eighty-eight percent of immigration judge survey
respondents cited verifying fraud as a moderately or very challenging
aspect of adjudicating asylum cases and 81 percent reported assessing
credibility as moderately or very challenging. In response to Attorney
General reforms, EOIR implemented a program in 2006 to which
immigration judges can refer instances of suspected fraud and receive
materials to aid in screening for fraud. Eighty-two percent of
immigration judges also reported time limitations as moderately or very
challenging aspects of their asylum adjudications and 77 percent
reported that managing their caseload was moderately or very
challenging. The growth in the number of immigration judges has not
kept pace with the growth in their overall caseload and case
completions, which may contribute to the challenge. From fiscal years
2002 through 2007, the number of immigration judges increased by less
than 1 percent, while the average caseload per immigration judge rose
by 13 percent, and case completions rose 20 percent. To help courts
address growing caseloads, EOIR has taken steps including detailing
immigration judges to courts with high caseloads and plans to hire
additional staff, including immigration judges, to help immigration
judges better manage their caseload. However, it is too soon to know
the extent to which hiring additional staff will alleviate immigration
judges' time challenges.
To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, we
recommend that the Asylum Division explore ways to provide additional
opportunities for asylum officers to observe skilled interviewers,
develop a framework for soliciting and acting on asylum officers' and
supervisory asylum officers' views of their training needs in a
structured and consistent manner, develop a plan to more fully
implement its quality review framework, and empirically determine how
long it takes to thoroughly adjudicate cases and revise the
productivity standard, if warranted.
DHS and USCIS concurred with our recommendations.
Background:
Asylum, a form of humanitarian protection, is an immigration benefit
that enables certain noncitizens to remain in the United States and
apply for lawful permanent residence.[Footnote 7] Asylum provides
refuge for certain individuals who have been persecuted in the past or
fear persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
[Footnote 8]
Congress and the executive branch have acted to strengthen the U.S.
asylum system against the possibility of asylum fraud and limit its
vulnerability to terrorists using it as a vehicle for remaining in the
United States. For example, in the mid-1990s, the Asylum Division
implemented major reforms which, among other things, decoupled
employment authorization from asylum requests to discourage applicants
with fraudulent asylum claims from applying for asylum solely to obtain
a work authorization, and established a goal of completing asylum
adjudications within 180 days.[Footnote 9] To account for such
circumstances, the Asylum Division established a national goal to
complete 75 percent of the cases that are interviewed at local Asylum
Offices and referred to the immigration courts within 60 days of the
application date[Footnote 10]; EOIR established a goal that 90 percent
of all asylum cases be completed within 180 days from the application
date. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 generally codified some of these reforms into law and required
administrative adjudication of asylum applications, not including
administrative appeals, within 180 days, absent exceptional
circumstances.[Footnote 11] It also incorporated certain security
provisions, including a requirement that the identity of all asylum
applicants be checked against certain records or databases maintained
by the federal government to determine if an applicant is ineligible to
apply for or be granted asylum.
More recently, the REAL ID Act of 2005 codified existing DOJ precedent
that (1) the burden is on the applicant to establish past persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution and (2) asylum adjudicators have
the discretion to require documentary support for asylum claims.
[Footnote 12] Specifically, if an adjudicator determines that the
applicant should provide evidence to corroborate otherwise credible
testimony, such evidence is to be provided unless the applicant does
not have and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence. The act also laid
out the criteria to be considered in making a credibility
determination, stating that adjudicators must consider the totality of
the circumstances and all relevant factors. An adjudicator may base a
credibility determination on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or
falsehoods without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or
falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, as long as it is
relevant to the evaluation in light of the totality of the
circumstances. It also clarified the wording of the terrorist-related
grounds of ineligibility for a grant.
Responsibility for the U.S. Asylum System is shared between USCIS in
DHS and EOIR in DOJ, with asylum officers and immigration judges
adjudicating asylum cases as well as other types of cases. In addition
to asylum cases, the Asylum Division's and EOIR's caseloads also
include certain applications for relief under section 203 of the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)[Footnote
13] and credible and reasonable fear cases. NACARA cases involve
certain individuals from Guatemala and El Salvador and former Soviet
Bloc countries who can have their removal cancelled. Credible fear
cases involve individuals subject to expedited removal who express an
intention to apply for asylum or state that they have a fear of
persecution or torture. Reasonable fear cases involve individuals
subject to administrative removal or reinstated orders of removal who
have expressed a fear of persecution or torture if removed. In addition
to these cases, immigration judges also hear other types of immigration
cases.
The Asylum Division and its eight Asylum Offices--Arlington, Chicago,
Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Newark, and San Francisco--
reside within USCIS. Asylum officers are assigned to these eight
offices and periodically travel to other locations to conduct
interviews when applicants live outside the general geographic area of
these offices. In fiscal year 2008, the Asylum Division received about
$61 million all from USCIS fee-based funding, although no fee is
charged to apply for asylum.[Footnote 14] Within EOIR, immigration
judges are positioned organizationally under the Office of the Chief
Immigration Judge, which is responsible for 54 administrative
immigration courts.[Footnote 15] The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
also resides within EOIR and is responsible for hearing appeals of
immigration judges' asylum decisions, among other kinds of appeals. In
fiscal year 2008, EOIR received about $238 million to fund all of its
activities.
DHS Has a Nonadversarial Adjudication Process:
DHS's asylum adjudication process involves affirmative asylum claims--
that is, claims that are made at the initiative of the alien who is in
the country either legally or illegally and filed directly with USCIS.
The affirmative asylum process is nonadversarial in that no government
official argues in opposition to the asylum applicant, and the asylum
officer is to be a neutral decision maker. Figure 1 provides an
overview of the steps typically involved in DHS's asylum process. For
more detailed information on the asylum process, see appendix V.
Figure 1: Steps in the DHS Asylum Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure illustrates the steps in the DHS asylum process, as
follows:
Affirmative claims:
DHS Service Center (within 21 days):
* Alien files asylum application;
* Service Center personnel, among other things:
- check for duplicate filings;
- match or create new file;
- enter information into the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System (which
automatically initiates certain background, identity, and security
checks);
* Applicant is sent a notice to appear for fingerprinting;
DHS Asylum Office (within 60 days):
* Applicant receives interview notice within 21 days of filing
application;
* Asylum officer adjudicates asylum case including interview; Asylum
officer typically:
- reviews applicant file, which includes asylum application, written
statement, and any supporting documents;
- ensures background, identity, and security check are conducted;
- conducts country condition research;
- conducts nonadversarial in-depth interview with applicant;
- determines if the applicant is credible and eligible for asylum;
- verifies and updates information in the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole
System;
- ensures appropriate documentation is prepared and placed in file;
- prepares written decision, including legal analysis;
* Asylum officer submits written decision to supervisory asylum officer
for review;
* Does the supervisory asylum officer sign off on the decision?
- Yes, continue;
- No, return to previous step in process;
* Applicant generally picks up decision 14 days after the interview;
* If decision is to grant asylum: Asylum is granted;
* If the decision is to not grant asylum:
* Is the applicant in the U.S. legally?
- If yes: Applicant is issued a Notice of Intent to Deny;
- If no: Applicant is issued a Notice to Appear before an immigration
judge.
Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data; Art Explosion.
[End of figure]
The Asylum Division's Affirmative Asylum Procedures Manual and basic
training materials for asylum officers identify the various tasks
asylum officers are to perform in adjudicating an asylum case. Asylum
officers are required to conduct an asylum interview, prior to which
they must, among other things, review the applicant's file and check
databases to (1) determine who is included on the application, (2)
determine when the applicant claims to have entered the United States
and when he or she filed the asylum application,[Footnote 16] (3)
become familiar with the applicant's background and claim, and (4)
identify issues to cover during the interview. In addition, if the
asylum officer is unfamiliar with country conditions relevant to the
applicant's claim, the officer should research conditions in that
country. During the interview, in addition to hearing the applicant's
testimony, the asylum officer must also explain the process, verify
basic and biographical information provided on his or her application,
and place the applicant, the applicant's interpreter, and the
interpreter monitor under oath. After the interview, the asylum officer
must update the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System (RAPS); write a
decision that includes a legal analysis and in most cases citations to
country conditions; and prepare a decision letter. In making a
decision, an asylum officer must make a determination of the
credibility of the applicant and consider if any false submission of
information is relevant to the claim. On average, asylum officers have
about 4 hours to complete these tasks for each case. The 4-hour average
is based on the productivity standard that requires management to
assign asylum officers work equivalent to 18 asylum cases in a 2-week
period and allows for 4 hours of training each week. In addition, the
Asylum Division generally requires that asylum officers submit their
written decisions to their supervisor within 4 days of conducting an
applicant interview.
Affirmative asylum applicants are almost never detained while their
asylum application is pending. Applicants are free to live in the
United States pending the completion of their asylum processing. DHS's
affirmative asylum process can result in asylum officers making one of
the following decisions regarding the applicant and qualifying
dependents: [Footnote 17]
Grant of asylum. The asylum officer grants asylum when he or she
determines that the applicant is eligible for asylum. The asylees can
remain in the United States indefinitely unless their asylum is
terminated. [Footnote 18] Asylees are eligible for certain benefits,
such as an Employment Authorization Document, an unrestricted Social
Security card, and medical and employment assistance.[Footnote 19]
Within 2 years of being granted asylum, asylees can petition for a
spouse or child who was not included in the original grant of asylum to
also obtain asylum. In addition, they may also apply for lawful
permanent residency 1 year after being granted asylum and, ultimately,
United States citizenship.
Recommended approval of asylum. The asylum officer issues a recommended
approval of asylum when he or she determines that the applicant is
eligible for asylum, but USCIS has not received the results of a
mandatory FBI name check. The decision to change a recommended approval
to an asylum grant is contingent on a favorable result from background,
identity, and security checks (referred to throughout this report as
identity and security checks). An applicant who receives a recommended
approval may apply for an Employment Authorization Document, but not
for other benefits.
Referral to immigration court. The asylum officer makes a referral to
the immigration court when the applicant is in the United States
illegally and the officer determines that the applicant is ineligible
for asylum. The asylum officer prepares a Notice to Appear before an
immigration judge. A referral is not a denial of asylum; rather the
applicant and any of the applicant's dependents also in the United
States illegally are placed in removal proceedings where an immigration
judge reviews the asylum case de novo.[Footnote 20]
Denial of asylum. The asylum officer denies asylum when the applicant
is in the United States legally and the officer determines that the
applicant is ineligible for asylum. The asylum officer prepares a
Notice of Intent to Deny, and the applicant is given 16 days to rebut
the finding. If the applicant submits a rebuttal, the asylum officer
reviews it and then approves or denies the claim. If the applicant does
not rebut the finding or the rebuttal fails to overcome the grounds for
denial, the applicant is denied asylum but may stay in the United
States as long as the applicant remains in legal status.
Not all cases result in an asylum decision. For example, USCIS
administratively closes a case if the applicant withdraws his or her
asylum application. From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the asylum
grant rate for affirmative asylum applications ranged from 30 percent
to 36 percent for asylum cases that resulted in a decision. [Footnote
21]
From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division received about
400,000 new or re-opened asylum, NACARA, and credible and reasonable
fear cases and completed approximately 750,000 cases.[Footnote 221]
During this same period, authorized staffing levels for asylum officers
ranged from a high of 332 officers in 2004 to a low of 291 officers in
2007. See appendix VI for more information on the Asylum Division's
caseload and staffing levels.
DOJ Has an Adversarial Adjudication Process:
In contrast to DHS's process, DOJ's asylum adjudication process is
adversarial in that individuals appear in removal proceedings before
EOIR immigration judges to defend themselves against removal from the
United States. Immigration judges hear both affirmative asylum claims
that have been referred to them by an asylum officer as well as
defensive asylum claims. A defensive claim is made by an alien who
first requests asylum while in removal proceedings. An alien making a
defensive claim may have been placed in removal proceedings after
having been stopped at the border without proper documentation,
identified as present in the United States illegally, or identified as
deportable on one or more grounds, such as certain kinds of criminal
convictions. Applicants who filed for asylum affirmatively with USCIS,
but were referred to an immigration court and placed in removal
proceedings, continue to be considered "affirmative" asylum applicants.
Affirmative and defensive claims follow the same procedures in removal
proceedings.
During immigration court proceedings, immigration judges hear witness
testimony and cross-examinations and review evidence. ICE Assistant
Chief Counsels, also known as ICE trial attorneys, represent DHS in
these proceedings. ICE trial attorneys are also responsible for
ensuring identity and security checks are completed. An applicant in
immigration proceedings may be represented by an attorney of his or her
choosing at no cost to the government. Figure 2 provides an overview of
the steps typically involved in EOIR's asylum process. For more
detailed information on the asylum process, see appendix V.
Figure 2: Steps in the DOJ Asylum Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure illustrates the steps in the DOJ asylum process, as
follows:
Affirmative claims:
Alien files an asylum application with USCIS and is referred to an
immigration court and issued a Notice to Appear.
Defensive claims:
Alien first submits an asylum claim before an immigration judge after
being issued a Notice to Appear.
* Alien is issued a Notice to Appear by DHS;
* Alien requests asylum as defense against removal;
* Alien is placed in removal proceedings;
* Initial hearing is scheduled at an immigration court;
* Individual merits hearing is scheduled;
* Immigration judge hears case and makes an asylum decision;
- Asylum granted: DHS can appeal decision to the BIA;
- Asylum denied: Applicant can appeal decision to the BIA.
Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data; Art Explosion.
[End of figure]
EOIR's asylum adjudication process can result in immigration judges
making one of the following decisions regarding the applicant and
qualifying dependents:
Grant of asylum. The immigration judge grants asylum when he or she
determines that the applicant is eligible for asylum. The asylees can
remain in the United States indefinitely, unless DOJ terminates asylum.
A grant of asylum from an immigration judge confers the same benefits
on an asylee as a grant of asylum from an asylum officer, which are
discussed earlier in this report.
Denial of asylum. The immigration judge denies asylum when he or she
determines that the applicant is ineligible for asylum and may order
the applicant to be removed from the United States unless the
immigration judge grants the applicant another form of relief from
removal.[Footnote 23]
EOIR may also close a case without making a decision for such reasons
as a request to move a case from one court to another or the applicant
withdrawing or abandoning his or her application for asylum. From
fiscal years 2002 through 2005, the asylum grant rate in the
immigration courts remained fairly consistent at around 37 percent, and
increased to 45 percent in 2006 and 46 percent in 2007. [Footnote 24]
From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the immigration courts received
about 1.9 million newly filed or reopened immigration cases, and
completed about the same number of cases. During this same time, the
number of authorized immigration judges increased from 216 in fiscal
year 2002 to 251 in fiscal year 2007. See appendix VI for more detailed
information on EOIR's caseload and staffing.
The Asylum Division and EOIR Have Designed Quality Assurance Mechanisms
to Help Ensure the Integrity of Asylum Adjudications, but Some Can Be
Improved:
To help ensure quality in adjudications, the Asylum Division has
designed training programs and quality reviews and EOIR has designed
training programs, but some can be improved. The Asylum Division has
designed a framework for training asylum officers and their
supervisors. However, despite general satisfaction with the initial
training that officers receive, many asylum officers and supervisors
agreed that asylum officers needed additional training in a number of
areas--such as identifying fraud, conducting identity and security
checks, and assessing credibility--to improve their ability to carry
out their responsibilities. Also, 88 percent of asylum officers
expressed the view that observing skilled interviewers would help
improve their interviewing skills, yet 53 percent of asylum officers
reported they had not had the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the
Asylum Division does not have a framework in place to solicit asylum
officers' or supervisors' views on training needs in a structured and
consistent manner. The Asylum Division has designed a framework for
quality reviews, including those conducted by supervisors and other
local and headquarters personnel. Although supervisors review all
asylum officer decisions and headquarters personnel review certain
cases, other quality reviews had not occurred in three of the eight
Asylum Offices. With respect to EOIR, although the majority of
immigration judges reported the training they received enhanced their
ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the majority reported needing
additional training in several areas, including identifying fraud. EOIR
expanded its training program primarily for new immigration judges in
2006 and annually solicits input from immigration judges on their
training needs. According to EOIR, BIA reviews of appealed cases
provide another means of quality assurance.
Asylum Officers and Supervisors Receive Training, but Most Reported
Having Additional Training Needs:
The Asylum Division provides training to asylum officers and
supervisory asylum officers (i.e., centralized training) and directs
local Asylum Offices to provide weekly training (i.e., decentralized
training), but most asylum officers and supervisors who responded to
our survey reported that better or more training was needed,
particularly in the area of fraud, to improve asylum officers' ability
to adjudicate asylum cases. The mix of centralized and decentralized
training that officers receive reflects elements of a strategic
approach to training that we have described in previous work. [Footnote
25] Centralized training consists of a 5-week Asylum Officer Basic
Training Course (AOBTC) that addresses most facets of the asylum
adjudication process and is usually offered about twice each year at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to recently hired
asylum officers. To adjudicate asylum claims, asylum officers must
either complete this training program or be certified at their
respective Asylum Office.[Footnote 26] In addition, a 5-week basic
training course on immigration law for USCIS adjudications officers and
asylum officers is generally provided at FLETC or another USCIS
facility within an asylum officer's first year. The Asylum Division
also periodically offers a 2-week supervisory training program in
Washington, D.C., for supervisory asylum officers and Asylum Office
Directors and Deputy Directors that concentrates primarily on advanced
asylum law issues and the review of asylum officer decisions.
Additionally, USCIS said that the Asylum Division created a new
management position--a Chief of Training--to take actions to improve
the training of asylum officers. The first Chief of Training came on
board on August 31, 2008.
Most asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers who responded to
our survey reported that the centralized training they received
generally prepared them for their roles. Specifically, 75 percent of
asylum officers reported that AOBTC prepared them moderately or very
well to adjudicate asylum cases, a positive view of AOBTC that held
regardless of their length of experience as asylum officers. However,
more than 75 percent of asylum officers also believed that AOBTC needed
improvement to better prepare them to identify possible fraud and
conduct identity and security checks. Among the 26 supervisory asylum
officers who had attended the supervisory training program prior to
completing our survey, 14 said that, overall, the training prepared
them moderately or very well to review asylum officer[Footnote 27]
decisions. Nevertheless, 13 of those who had attended the training
reported that the supervisory training program needed to be improved to
help them better provide feedback on asylum officer written decisions,
while 12 reported improvements were needed to help them better
understand and contribute to the Asylum Division's efforts to combat
asylum fraud and 12 reported improvements were needed to help them
better analyze credibility.
In addition to the centralized training programs, the Asylum Division
requires that asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers
participate in ongoing decentralized training at local Asylum Offices,
where local Quality Assurance and Training Coordinators (QA/T) are
responsible for developing training to meet the needs of each office.
Asylum Offices are to allocate 4 hours each week for formal or informal
training to asylum officers and their supervisors. The training can
range from classroom instruction by the local QA/T to individual study
time that officers can use for such learning activities as staying
current with case law, researching conditions around the world
affecting asylees and refugees, and reading new procedures issued by
headquarters. Although QA/Ts, in consultation with local office
management, have significant discretion in deciding what training to
provide, officials from the Training, Research, and Quality Branch said
they review each office's quarterly training reports to ascertain what
training has been provided and is planned. In addition, the Asylum
Division provides training materials to all the offices to ensure a
national, consistent training approach when warranted. For example,
after the REAL ID Act was passed, the Asylum Division distributed
explanatory PowerPoint presentations and descriptions of the statutory
changes.
Notwithstanding the training asylum officers and supervisors receive,
most identified areas in which they said they needed additional
training on fraud-related topics as well as other areas. As figure 3
shows, at least 75 percent of asylum officers or 75 percent of
supervisory asylum officers who responded to our survey identified 15
specific topics (from about 25 training topics about which we inquired)
as areas in which asylum officers needed more training to improve their
ability to adjudicate asylum claims. Furthermore, supervisory asylum
officers consistently viewed asylum officers' need for additional
training as greater than asylum officers' perceptions of their own
needs. We do not know why, in some instances, there were sizable
differences between asylum officers' and supervisors' views of asylum
officers' training needs. However, supervisors have a broader
perspective since multiple asylum officers report to them.
The training topics identified were in areas related to fraud, identity
and security checks, interviewing and assessing credibility, relevant
statutes, time management, and the Asylum Virtual Library--the Asylum
Division's online library.
Figure 3: Topics Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey
Respondents Most Frequently Identified as Areas in Which Asylum
Officers Moderately or Greatly Needed Additional Training:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Training topic: Identifying fraudulent documents;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 82.9;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 85.
Training topic: Current trends in fraud;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 79;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 92.5.
Training topic: Identifying fraud in the claim;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 77.1;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 80.
Training topic: Identifying preparer fraud;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 71.9;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 80.
Training topic: Identifying attorney fraud;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 67.3;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 75.
Training topic: Identifying interpreter fraud;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 65.1;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 82.1.
Training topic: Interpreting results of identity and security checks:
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 68;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 87.5.
Training topic: Conducting identity and security checks;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 62.7;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 85.
Training topic: Assessing credibility;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 64.2;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 95.
Training topic: Overall interviewing skills;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 38.9;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 87.5.
Training topic: Eliciting sufficient information during interviews[A];
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 0;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 83.
Training topic: Applying the REAL ID Act;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 67.7;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 90.
Training topic: U.S. asylum law;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 44;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 77.5.
Training topic: Time management;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 56.8;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 85.
Training topic: Using the Asylum Virtual Library;
Percentage of survey respondents, Asylum officers: 43.8;
Percentage of survey respondents, Supervisory asylum officers: 75.
Notes: Asylum officer respondents: n=171.
Supervisory asylum officer respondents: n=40.
There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.
The training topics included in this chart are those respondents most
frequently identified--that is, at least 75 percent of asylum officers
or 75 percent of supervisory asylum officers identified these topics as
areas in which asylum officers moderately or greatly needed more
training. We asked asylum officers about 25 training topics and asked
supervisory asylum officers about those same 25 topics plus 2
additional ones. (See survey questions in app. I and app. II for the
full list of training topics.)
[A] We asked only supervisory asylum officers about this topic.
[End of figure]
Fraud-detection training. USCIS's Strategic Plan calls for training
adjudications staff, which includes asylum officers, to proactively
identify fraud when considering applications for immigration benefits.
However, 77 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey
reported that AOBTC's training needed to be improved with respect to
identifying possible fraud. Asylum Division officials told us that
despite a number of improvements, they also saw fraud-detection
training as one of the areas that requires further refinement in the
AOBTC curriculum but had not updated AOBTC's written lesson plan on
fraud since 2002 because (1) USCIS's fraud-prevention program had been
evolving since its creation of its Office of Fraud Detection and
National Security (FDNS) in 2004 and placement of FDNS immigration
officers (FDNS-IO) at Asylum Offices and (2) revising other lesson
plans, such as those related to national security issues, had taken
priority. However, they explained that despite not having updated the
written lesson plan, fraud-prevention training at AOBTC had undergone
significant changes since 2002 and continues to undergo change. For
example, since 2002, the Asylum Division added training sessions at
AOBTC on the role of FDNS-IOs in Asylum Offices, a workshop on how to
make fraud referrals, a "hands on" session on identifying features of
fraudulent documents, and a fraud-prevention computer lab session
emphasizing the electronic resources available to asylum officers.
According to Asylum Division officials, since 2006, AOBTC has dedicated
6 or more hours to fraud-detection training. Although the Asylum
Division has made changes to improve fraud-detection training at AOBTC,
our 2007 survey found that 70 percent (19 of 27) of new asylum officer
respondents (who would have attended AOBTC since 2006) reported that
fraud detection-training at AOBTC needed to be improved to better
prepare them to identify fraud. Those with longer tenure (who would
have attended AOBTC prior to 2006) also held this view. Eighty-one
percent (79 of 98) of respondents who attended AOBTC and had been
asylum officers for at least 1 year but less than 10 years, and 94
percent (30 of 32) of those who attended AOBTC and had been asylum
officers for 10 years or more, reported that AOBTC fraud-detection
training needed improvement.
Asylum officers' views that more fraud-related training was needed to
improve their ability to adjudicate asylum claims extended beyond the
AOBTC curriculum to the ongoing training sessions that take place at
their respective Asylum Offices. Overall, at least 75 percent of both
asylum officer and supervisory asylum officer survey respondents
reported that asylum officers needed additional training on identifying
fraudulent documents, current trends in fraud, and identifying fraud in
the claim. In addition, the majority of asylum officers and supervisors
reported, overall, that asylum officers also needed additional training
on identifying preparer fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated by an individual
who prepared the applicant's application), attorney fraud (i.e., fraud
perpetrated by an attorney representing the applicant), and interpreter
fraud (i.e., fraud perpetrated by an individual who translates during
the applicant's interview). These results were generally consistent
across Asylum Offices--that is, at least half of the supervisors in all
eight Asylum Offices reported that asylum officers needed additional
training in these fraud-related topics, and the majority of asylum
officers reported this need in seven of the eight offices.
According to Asylum Division officials, since 2006, the Asylum Division
has required that each Asylum Office have at least two of their staff
trained by ICE's Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL). These staff attend
a 3-day training that focuses on methods for detecting fraudulent
features in documents as well as security features in genuine
documents. Staff who have completed this training are responsible for
training other asylum officers and serving as in-house resources on
document issues. According to Asylum Division officials, as of June
2008, the Asylum Division had 34 staff who received this FDL training.
Identity and security checks. Checking asylum applicants' identity
against appropriate records and databases is required by asylum law and
Asylum Division procedures and is a tool to help determine whether
certain applicants may be ineligible for asylum protection. The results
of required checks may uncover, for example, that an applicant may be
barred due to national security concerns. Despite their importance to
the integrity of the asylum process, 63 percent of asylum officers and
85 percent of supervisory asylum officers (34 of 40)[Footnote 28] who
responded to our survey reported that asylum officers moderately or
greatly needed additional training on conducting identity and security
checks.
AOBTC provides a general exposure to the topic of databases and
identity and security checks, and, according to 76 percent of asylum
officer respondents, this was an area that needed to be improved at
AOBTC to better prepare them to make asylum decisions. The latest AOBTC
Validation Study,[Footnote 29] which was completed in 2003, noted that
completing identity and security checks was among the critical tasks
asylum officers perform and recommended that asylum officers receive
basic orientation to this task at AOBTC, followed by on-the-job
training at their local Asylum Office. Officials from the Asylum
Division's Training, Research, and Quality Branch explained that new
asylum officers should receive local training on databases because the
databases asylum officers are required to check are not all accessible
at AOBTC. Further, the expertise for teaching how to conduct and
interpret the results of identity and security checks resides among
staff at local Asylum Offices.
Most asylum officers who responded to our survey reported that they
understood the information in the databases they check, yet the
majority of asylum officer and supervisor respondents said that asylum
officers still needed more training on identity and security checks.
Eighty-eight percent of asylum officer respondents reported that they
moderately or greatly understood the type of information contained in
the various databases or systems they check as well as the results they
receive. Nevertheless, 68 percent of asylum officers thought additional
training was moderately or greatly needed at their local offices on
interpreting the results of identity and security checks--a view held
by 88 percent of supervisors (35 of 40). Sixty-three percent of asylum
officer respondents thought more training was moderately or greatly
needed locally on conducting these checks--a view held by 85 percent of
supervisors (34 of 40). This view was fairly consistent across all
eight Asylum Offices--that is, at least half of the supervisors
reported this training need for asylum officers in all eight Asylum
Offices, while the majority of asylum officers reported this need in
seven of the eight offices. In providing survey comments, one asylum
officer expressed the opinion that training is needed on how to read
the results from all the identity and security checks because, although
officers do these checks as required, they do not know what to do if
they get a hit that indicates that the applicant may be a national
security or public safety threat. In an effort to keep asylum officers
informed of policies and procedures for conducting checks, the Asylum
Division issued an Identity and Security Checks Procedures Manual in
2005 and has updated it three times between March 2007 and May 2008.
Interviewing and assessing credibility. Assessing credibility involves
a determination of whether all of the evidence indicates that the
applicant's testimony is credible. An asylum officer may find the
applicant to be credible if he or she determines, upon considering the
totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, that an
applicant's testimony is consistent, detailed, and plausible. The
ability to elicit information through applicant interviews is a
critical component of an asylum officer's ability to distinguish
between genuine and fraudulent claims. Internal control standards for
the federal government state that agencies should, among other things,
ensure that management identifies skills personnel need to perform jobs
and provide the needed training to staff.[Footnote 30]
Responses from asylum officers and supervisors to several survey
questions pointed to the need for additional training or learning
opportunities to improve asylum officers' interviewing skills,
including assessing credibility. Sixty-four percent of asylum officers
who responded to our survey reported a moderate or great need for more
training on assessing credibility. To a much greater extent,
supervisors, who are required to observe one interview each month
conducted by each asylum officer they supervise, thought that asylum
officers needed more interview-related training. Furthermore, 95
percent of supervisor respondents (38 of 40) reported that asylum
officers moderately or greatly needed additional training in assessing
credibility--more than in any of the 27 training areas about which we
inquired--to improve their ability to adjudicate asylum claims. Eighty-
eight percent of supervisors (35 of 40) reported that asylum officers
needed more training in overall interviewing skills and 83 percent of
supervisors (33 of 40) thought asylum officers needed more training on
eliciting sufficient information during interviews. According to a
supervisory asylum officer with local anti-fraud responsibilities,
interviewing is the only realistic basis for fraud deterrence and new
officers should be informed from the start that if they cannot develop
sophisticated fraud-sensitive interviewing skills, they will not be
able to make meaningful adjudications.
According to 88 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey,
having the opportunity to observe interviews conducted by skilled
interviewers would be a moderate to very useful way to improve
officers' interviewing skills, yet 53 percent reported not having had
the opportunity to do so. Of those asylum officers who said observing
skilled interviewers would be useful, 98 percent reported this would be
moderately or very useful during their first year on the job and many
thought this would be of value beyond their first year, as shown in
table 1. Standards for internal control in the federal government state
that federal agencies should ensure that management provides needed
training to staff. Providing additional opportunities to observe
skilled interviewers would help asylum officers refine their interview
techniques to elicit information to use in assessing credibility,
determining eligibility, and distinguishing between genuine and
fraudulent claims.
Table 1: Asylum Officers Reporting When in Their Career as an Asylum
Officer It Would Be, or Would Have Been, Moderately or Very Useful to
Observe Skilled Interviewers:
Stage in asylum officer career: During 1st year;
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 98.
Stage in asylum officer career: During 2nd year;
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 71.
Stage in asylum officer career: Between 3rd and 5th year;
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 39.
Stage in asylum officer career: After 5th year;
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 32.
Stage in asylum officer career: When returning to affirmative asylum
adjudications after other assignments or rotations;
Percentage of asylum officers reporting moderately or very useful: 54.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
[End of table]
Relevant statutes (the REAL ID Act and U.S. asylum law). Given that
writing a legal analysis is part of every asylum decision they make,
asylum officers must know how to read and interpret precedent decisions
and stay current with case law. The REAL ID Act of 2005 made changes
that apply to asylum adjudications of applications filed on or after
May 11, 2005. In addition to developing AOBTC lesson plans, the Asylum
Division developed training materials on the REAL ID Act and required
that all Asylum Offices provide local training no later than May 30,
2006. Nevertheless, when we conducted our surveys in March through May
2007, 68 percent of asylum officers and 90 percent of supervisory
asylum officers (36 of 40) who responded reported that asylum officers
had a moderate or great need for additional training on how to apply
the REAL ID Act in adjudicating asylum decisions. Further, 44 percent
of asylum officers and 78 percent of supervisory asylum officers (31 of
40) who responded to our survey indicated that asylum officers had a
moderate or great need for additional training on U.S. asylum law, in
general--for example, on case law and statutory and regulatory changes.
Time management. Fifty-seven percent of asylum officer respondents and
85 percent of supervisory asylum officer respondents (34 of 40)
reported that asylum officers had a moderate or great need for
additional training on time management. An Asylum Office Deputy
Director explained that without good time management skills, asylum
officers can easily fall behind on their workload and it can be
impossible to catch up. Later in this report we will discuss, in depth,
how time constraints challenge asylum officers and how this affects
their adjudications.
Using the Asylum Virtual Library. The Asylum Virtual Library is an
online collection of documents produced and collected by the Asylum
Division and Asylum Offices. Documents in the online library are
organized into folders and include case law, country-conditions
information, decision-writing templates, forms, policies and
procedures, statistics, and training materials. Asylum Office personnel
can find information by browsing through the folders or by conducting
searches. Forty-four percent of asylum officers and 75 percent of
supervisors (30 of 40) who responded to our survey reported that asylum
officers had a moderate or great need for additional training on using
the Asylum Virtual Library.[Footnote 31]
Asylum Division Does Not Solicit Officers' Views on Training in a
Structured and Consistent Manner:
Although our surveys of asylum officers and supervisors revealed some
widely held views about asylum officers' and supervisors' training
needs, the Asylum Division does not have a framework in place for
soliciting asylum officers' and supervisors' views on their training
needs in a structured and consistent manner. Obtaining information in
this manner would improve headquarters' and Asylum Offices' knowledge
of asylum officers' and supervisory asylum officers' ongoing training
needs and the ability to use training to meet those needs. We have
previously reported that a best human-capital practice among effective
organizations is to survey or interview agency employees to obtain
their views on training programs that might be needed and
systematically consider and act on employees' suggestions for improving
or developing training, when appropriate.[Footnote 32] The Asylum
Division requests general written feedback from new asylum officers on
the training they received at AOBTC.[Footnote 32] In addition, all
eight Asylum Office Directors stated that their offices had used ad hoc
methods to obtain input from officers on unmet training needs, such as
asking for feedback at training sessions or periodically e-mailing
officers for training suggestions. However, these methods varied among
offices and were not done in a consistent manner using a structured
approach to collect the information.
Nevertheless, 63 percent of the asylum officers who responded to our
survey said their Asylum Office had not solicited their views on what
training should be offered locally. Responses varied by Asylum Office.
In four of the eight offices, between half and three-fourths of the
asylum officers said their views had been solicited; but in the
remaining four offices, no more than 15 percent said their views had
been solicited. Training, Research, and Quality Branch officials said
that, at the national level, they rely on Asylum Office Directors for
feedback on whether they are meeting officers' needs and also request
information on asylum officer training needs and activities during
monthly conference calls with local QA/Ts.
The Asylum Division Designed a Framework for Quality Reviews, but Local
Quality Assurance Reviews Do Not Always Occur:
The Asylum Division has designed a three-tiered framework for
conducting quality reviews in Asylum Offices and headquarters to help
ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions, but local
quality assurance reviews--one of the three tiers--do not always occur.
According to the Asylum Division, a "particularly high level" of
quality is demanded in asylum decisions to protect the integrity of the
legal immigration process and to avoid potentially serious consequences
that could result if an applicant is harmed after being wrongfully
returned to his or her home country or if an applicant who poses a
threat to the United States is wrongfully permitted to stay. As such,
it has designed a quality review framework that includes supervisory
review, local QA/T review, and headquarters quality review. Together,
these reviews are intended, among other things, to help ensure quality
and consistency as well as identify deficiencies that might be
addressed through training. This framework is in keeping with internal
control standards for the federal government, which state that agencies
should assure that ongoing monitoring occurs in the course of normal
operations.[Footnote 34]
Supervisory review. The Asylum Division requires a supervisory asylum
officer to sign off on every asylum decision to indicate that it is
supported by law and that procedures are properly followed.[Footnote
35] Supervisory review is intended to assure quality and provide
consistency in decision making--not to ensure the supervisor agrees
with the specific decision the asylum officer reached. Asylum Office
Directors generally agreed that the 100 percent supervisory review
requirement was important for reasons that included the complexity of
asylum adjudications. One Asylum Office Director characterized the
requirement as the key to the Asylum Division's success. The majority
of the 171 asylum officers and 40 supervisory asylum officers who
responded to our survey considered these reviews as moderately or very
effective in ensuring compliance with procedures (72 percent and 90
percent, respectively) and improving the quality of decisions (53
percent and 83 percent, respectively). Further, 37 percent of asylum
officers and 73 percent of supervisors reported that the supervisory
review promoted consistency in decision making.[Footnote 36]
Local quality-assurance review. The Asylum Division created the QA/T
position in each Asylum Office to, among other things, review a sample
of asylum decisions for quality and consistency and observe asylum
officer interviews to assess interview techniques. According to the
Chief of the Training, Research, and Quality Branch, QA/T reviews are
similar to supervisory reviews in that both assess the legal
sufficiency of decisions. In addition, QA/Ts are in a position to take
a broader view by looking for consistency across each Asylum Office and
identifying office training needs that may surface from their quality
reviews. The 1997 QA/T position description outlined quality assurance
review responsibilities in addition to training responsibilities as
including (1) reviewing a representative sample of written decisions
for quality, consistency, and timeliness with an emphasis on
identifying patterns of inconsistency, faulty legal analysis, trends,
misuse of country-conditions information, or procedural or technical
errors; (2) reviewing sensitive cases before they are forwarded to
Asylum Division headquarters for review (see the following section on
headquarters quality review for more on these sensitive cases); and (3)
observing interviews conducted by asylum officers to identify strengths
and weaknesses in interviewing techniques. It further stated that QA/T
responsibilities included developing weekly training sessions that
address, among other things, the interviewing and adjudication
deficiencies noted during quality assurance reviews. Thus, by having
responsibility for reviewing asylum officers' decisions and observing
interviews, as well as providing training, it was intended that the QA/
T would be in a position to ensure any observed deficiencies could be
addressed through training and brought to local management's attention.
In 1998, the Asylum Division also communicated that quality assurance
responsibilities should occupy the greatest portion of a QA/Ts' time,
in contrast to the time they are to spend on their other
responsibilities, including training. It further communicated that a
proper role for the QA/T is to help the Asylum Office Director monitor
the quality assurance of each supervisory asylum officer. According to
the Chief of the Training, Research, and Quality Branch, QA/Ts are to
look for ways to improve the quality of each office's adjudications and
identify training needs. Furthermore, the Chief stated that each office
is to develop its own QA/T performance work plan and decide how many
cases a QA/T should review for quality, including how to select cases
for review.
As a result of the discretion given to Asylum Offices, expectations for
QA/T reviews of a sample of decisions varied among Asylum Offices. QA/
T performance work plans either included the expectation that QA/Ts
evaluate the quality and consistency of written decisions, or note
procedural or technical errors and deficiencies.[Footnote 37] QA/T
reviews of a sample of decisions were routinely conducted in five of
the eight offices, according to Asylum Office Directors and QA/Ts. For
example, we were told that in one office, QA/Ts randomly reviewed 2 to
3 decisions each week; in another office, the QA/T randomly reviewed 12
cases each week; and in a third office, the QA/T reviewed all decisions
that had been reviewed by a supervisor on 1 day every 2 weeks, focusing
on a particular aspect of the decision. According to two QA/Ts, the
deficiencies they most frequently identified involved asylum officers'
credibility assessments. For example, one explained that asylum
officers were not being sufficiently rigorous in pursuing applicants'
credibility. Although both QA/Ts said their reviews usually revealed
minor deficiencies, one noted that egregious problems did occasionally
surface, such as a decision that is not consistent with the latest case
law. In three offices QA/T reviews were not being done routinely. In
two of these offices, competing work demands reportedly precluded QA/Ts
from performing quality reviews or limited their frequency. For
example, in one office, the QA/T was expected to evaluate an average of
five or more decisions each week for quality and consistency to receive
the highest rating in the related performance element. However, the
Director of that office indicated the QA/T had been unable to meet that
expectation because of the time demands of other responsibilities
involving reviewing sensitive cases and training-related tasks. The
Asylum Office Director of the third office told us in August 2007 of
plans for that office to establish a process for the QA/T to randomly
review two to four decisions each week. Although this Director informed
us in August 2008 that the QA/T had begun conducting these reviews, the
Director stated the position had become vacant during the past year and
thus local quality assurance reviews were not taking place. In
addition, in six of the eight offices, including two that we visited,
performance work plans included local expectations that QA/Ts observe
and evaluate asylum officer interviews.[Footnote 38] However, in all
three offices we visited, the QA/Ts told us they did not observe or
evaluate asylum officer interviews, or did so only on occasion, because
of other work demands. Therefore, the Asylum Division's quality review
framework was not being fully implemented in all the offices.
Implementing the quality review framework would better position the
Asylum Division to examine the root causes of deficiencies and take
corrective action, such as addressing deficiencies through training.
A recent study of asylum adjudications by Georgetown University
researchers[Footnote 39] found that there was considerable variability
among individual adjudicators in Asylum Offices as well as in the
immigration courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals.[Footnote 40] Asylum
Office Directors generally agreed that grant rates can legitimately
vary among officers in one office as well as across offices.
Nevertheless, four either expressed concern about inconsistencies that
result from differences among some asylum officers or supervisory
asylum officers in their office or said that headquarters should be
doing more to improve the consistency of asylum decisions or review the
quality of work. According to the Asylum Division's Deputy Chief,
headquarters does not monitor asylum officers' grant rates or decision
patterns, which would provide some information regarding consistency in
asylum decisions, in part because it does not want to suggest that
there is a particular grant rate that is correct or desirable. Further,
we asked six Asylum Office Directors if they monitored the grant rates
of asylum officers in their offices and five said they did not. The
Asylum Division is considering developing a training course for QA/Ts
and creating a new senior asylum officer position that, among other
things, would have the authority to assess the consistency of
supervisory decisions.
Headquarters quality review. To help ensure consistency in novel or
complex areas of the law, the Asylum Division reviews all asylum cases
categorized as "sensitive" before an asylum decision is issued. Local
Asylum Offices are required to submit certain categories, established
by headquarters, of sensitive cases to the Asylum Division's Training,
Research, and Quality Branch in headquarters for quality review.
Sensitive cases include, for example, those involving issues related to
national security, applicants involved in persecutor or human rights
violations, diplomats or other high-level government or military
officials or family members, and principal applicants who are under 18
years of age.
In fiscal year 2007, Asylum Offices sent the Asylum Division 384 of
these sensitive asylum cases for review, of which 28 percent were
designated as national security cases. National security cases include
cases in which the applicant may be a persecutor, terrorist, or risk to
the security of the United States. In the previous fiscal year, Asylum
Offices sent 263 such cases to the Asylum Division for review, of which
41 percent were considered national security cases. Asylum Division
data indicate that, in fiscal year 2007, headquarters concurred with 86
percent of the decisions asylum officers made and, in fiscal year 2006,
it concurred with 83 percent of asylum officers' decisions. The data
further indicate that when the Asylum Division did not concur, it
generally required that the applicant be interviewed again or the
written decision be modified, and that the decision then be resubmitted
to headquarters for further review.
Majority of Immigration Judges Reported Needing Additional Training;
EOIR Expanded Training for New Immigration Judges and Solicited Input
on Training Needs:
Although the majority of immigration judges reported that EOIR's
training for newly hired immigration judges and annual training
enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the majority
reported needing additional training in several areas, including
identifying fraud. EOIR expanded its training program primarily for new
immigration judges in 2006 and annually solicits input from immigration
judges on their training needs.
Since 1997, EOIR has sent newly hired immigration judges to a week-long
training at the National Judicial College, which includes courses on
immigration court procedures, immigration law, ethics, caseload
management, and stress management. The training is delivered in a
workshop format and incorporates lecture instruction, small-group
exercises, and court-hearing demonstrations. Of the 67 immigration
judges who came on board since 1997 and responded to our question about
this training, 66 percent reported that the National Judicial College
moderately or greatly enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum
cases.:
In addition to the new immigration judge training program, EOIR also
holds an annual conference for all immigration judges. This conference
is generally a week-long training that includes lectures and
presentations. During the 2007 conference, topics covered included
immigration law and procedure, ethics, religious freedom, disparities
in asylum adjudications and forensic analysis. Eighty percent of
immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that attending
the annual conference in person either moderately or greatly enhanced
their ability to adjudicate asylum cases. Although immigration judges
generally attend this conference in person, the in-person conference
was canceled in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 and again in 2008
because of budget constraints. In its place, a virtual conference was
held in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and included recorded presentations
in place of the in-person conference. EOIR officials told us that
because of budget constraints, a virtual conference was also offered in
August 2008. The virtual conference included interactive computer-based
training addressing asylum issues before the courts and a multimedia
presentation that emphasizes the importance and effect of immigration
judge asylum decisions. Fifteen percent of immigration judges reported
that a virtual conference moderately or greatly enhanced their ability
to adjudicate asylum cases.
Although the majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey
reported that EOIR's new hire training and in-person annual conference
enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, as shown in figure
4, the majority of immigration judges also reported needing additional
training in certain areas. Seventy-six percent reported moderately or
greatly needing additional continuing education on asylum issues, 74
percent reported that additional training on identifying fraud was
moderately or greatly needed, 59 percent reported additional training
on assessing credibility was moderately or greatly needed, and 55
percent reported that additional training on U.S. asylum law was
moderately or greatly needed to enhance their ability to adjudicate
asylum cases. National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)
representatives we interviewed, who also serve as immigration judges,
stated that immigration judges could benefit if time were allotted each
week for self-study and they received more training on assessing
credibility.
Figure 4: Immigration Judge Survey Respondents' Views on Topics for
Which They Reported a Moderate or Great Need for Additional Training:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Training topic: Continuing education on asylum issues;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 75.6.
Training topic: Identifying fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 73.7.
Training topic: Assessing credibility;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 58.7.
Training topic: U.S. asylum law;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 54.8.
Training topic: Rendering oral decisions;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 31.4;
Training topic: Time management;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 29.7;
Training topic: Sensitivity and cultural awareness;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 27.4.
Training topic: Rendering a written decision;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 22.7.
Training topic: One-year rule;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 16.6.
Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
[End of figure]
Beyond these specific training topics, immigration judges who responded
to our survey also identified the need for other professional
development opportunities to enhance their ability to adjudicate asylum
cases. For example, 75 percent of immigration judges reported that
informal meetings with other immigration judges were moderately or
greatly needed. NAIJ representatives stated that EOIR's training
program lacks opportunities for immigration judges to meet and
communicate with other immigration judges in their same circuit and
that a circuit-specific regional conference, offered quarterly, would
address this need. Other forms of training that many immigration judge
survey respondents thought were moderately or greatly needed included
opportunities to be detailed to the BIA (62 percent) and attending
intergovernmental agency conferences (55 percent). With respect to
opportunities for immigration judges to be detailed to the BIA,
according to EOIR, two immigration judges were serving on the BIA as of
August 2007.[Footnote 41]
EOIR implemented several changes to its training program in response to
reforms directed by the Attorney General in 2006[Footnote 42] and in
alignment with EOIR's 2005-2010 Strategic Plan to prioritize training
for EOIR adjudicators, which was issued in 2004. In September 2006,
EOIR expanded its training for newly hired immigration judges by
requiring an additional week of courses. It also extended the time
newly hired immigration judges observed hearings from 1 week to 4
weeks. These changes were implemented after most of the immigration
judges in our survey population would have received new hire
training.[Footnote 43] Sixty-three percent of those responding to our
survey reported that observing hearings conducted by other immigration
judges moderately or greatly enhanced their ability to adjudicate
asylum cases.
EOIR also recognizes that new developments in immigration law
necessitate that immigration judges receive timely, current, circuit-
specific legal updates. As such, it distributes case summaries on a
weekly basis and, in response to reforms directed by the Attorney
General in 2006, launched a monthly publication that provides a more in-
depth analysis of legal issues, case law, and statutory and regulatory
developments. According to EOIR, although it has neither the time nor
the funds to expand immigration judges' opportunities to interact with
each other outside their court locations, it thinks it would be of
immense value. Lacking the opportunity in fiscal year 2008 for such
interactions through an immigration judge conference and having
received feedback that immigration judges would like to observe another
immigration judge, EOIR is structuring opportunities for peer court
observation to take place within each immigration judge's court.
[Footnote 42]
EOIR's 2005-2010 Strategic Plan calls for EOIR to annually identify
training needs for all immigration court staff and, as such, EOIR uses
a structured questionnaire to solicit immigration judges' training
needs at both the new immigration judge training and the immigration
judges' annual training conference. According to EOIR, it receives
continuous training recommendations from immigration judges in the
field, NAIJ, the Immigration Judges Advisory Committee, and new
immigration judges' training faculty. Further, Assistant Chief
Immigration Judges may observe immigration court proceedings to
determine whether immigration judges need additional training.
[Footnote 43] However, according to EOIR, budget cuts resulted in
reductions in spending in fiscal year 2008, including canceling planned
conferences and curtailing training.
BIA Reviews Immigration Judge Decisions That Are Appealed:
According to EOIR, another means of providing quality assurance resides
in its formal appeals board, the BIA. The BIA is the highest
administrative body for immigration issues and is responsible for
applying immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the
United States. Unlike asylum officers' decisions, all of which are
reviewed by supervisors, the BIA reviews decisions when DHS or the
asylum applicant appeals a decision. In addition, according to EOIR,
when a decision is appealed to the BIA, a transcript of the decision is
sent to the immigration judge's Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who
may review any or all of the transcribed decisions for quality
assurance. Overall, 10 percent of all immigration judges' decisions,
which include asylum decisions, were appealed to the BIA in fiscal year
2007.
Challenges in Assessing the Authenticity of Claims and Time Constraints
Are Key Factors Affecting Asylum Officers' Adjudications:
Asylum officers reported difficulties in assessing the authenticity of
asylum claims, despite mechanisms USCIS designed to help asylum
officers assess claims, and also reported time constraints in
adjudicating cases. Mechanisms USCIS designed included, for example,
identity and security checks and fraud prevention teams. Federal
entities outside USCIS's Asylum Division and FDNS also have a role in
combating fraud and confirming the validity of claims, but their
ability to provide assistance to asylum officers has been hindered due
to a lack of resources, competing priorities and, in some cases,
confidentiality requirements intended to protect asylum applicants and
their families. In addition, asylum officers and supervisors reported
that asylum officers do not have sufficient time to adjudicate cases in
a manner consistent with their procedures manual and training, although
management's views were mixed. Furthermore, the Asylum Division
established the productivity standard for asylum officers without the
benefit of empirical data.
Asylum Officers Reported Difficulties Assessing the Authenticity of
Claims Despite USCIS Mechanisms and Assistance from Other Federal
Agencies:
Asylum Officers Reported Facing Challenges Assessing the Authenticity
of Claims:
Asylum officers face challenges in assessing the authenticity of
claims--that is, identifying fraud and assessing credibility. The very
nature of the asylum system, which does not require applicants to
submit documentation to support their claim, presents a challenge.
Furthermore, economic incentives and benefits that accompany asylum can
make the system a target of fraud. Abuse of the asylum system by
particular groups has been reported in the past. For example, in 1999,
a large-scale federal investigation began that resulted in the
prosecution and conviction in 2005 of 23 individuals, including
immigration brokers and consultants who aided thousands of Indonesian
immigrants living in the United States in fraudulently applying for
government benefits, including asylum.[Footnote 46] In a 2006 document
prepared by FDNS staff at a USCIS service center, a particular
nationality was identified as using fraudulent documents for the
purpose of applying for asylum and establishing residency in the United
States. According to the report, "the issues identified...constitute
widespread abuse of the asylum system" by applicants from that country.
In responding to our survey, many asylum officers reported difficulties
carrying out their fraud-related responsibilities and, as discussed
earlier in this report, many reported needing more or better fraud-
related training. According to the Asylum Division, asylum officers
must consider whether fraud exists in the applicant's claim, identity
documents, or other documents provided to support the claim. Asylum
applicants' use of a fraudulent document does not necessarily
constitute fraud in their overall claim. Even after identifying fraud,
asylum officers must determine if the fraud was made knowingly to
obtain an immigration benefit for which the applicant was not entitled.
[Footnote 45] As shown in figure 5, asylum officers who responded to
our survey most frequently (73 percent) identified document fraud as
moderately or very difficult for them to identify. In September 2007,
we reported that the ease with which individuals can obtain genuine
identity documents for an assumed identity creates a vulnerability that
terrorists can exploit to enter the United States with legal status.
[Footnote 48]
Figure 5: Types of Fraud That Asylum Officer Survey Respondents
Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Type of fraud: Document fraud;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 73.
Type of fraud: Attorney fraud;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 53.
Type of fraud: Identity fraud;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 49.
Type of fraud: Preparer fraud;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 45.
Type of fraud: Fraud related to date or method of entry;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 44.
Type of fraud: Jurisdictional fraud;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 44.
Type of fraud: Fraud in the claim;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 38.
Type of fraud: Interpreter fraud;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 25.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[End of figure]
The figure also shows that about half of asylum officer survey
respondents identified attorney fraud (53 percent) and identity fraud
(49 percent) as moderately or very difficult for them to identify.
According to Asylum Division data for fiscal year 2007, 38 percent of
the applicants brought an attorney with them to their asylum interview;
in fiscal year 2006, 30 percent did so. An unscrupulous attorney might
prepare false asylum applications, including supporting affidavits and
documents, which may be difficult to identify. For example, in February
2008, an attorney was indicted for preparing fraudulent asylum
applications that included false documents with forged notary stamps
and signatures. With respect to identity fraud, asylum officers we
interviewed explained that the identity of an applicant is sometimes
hard to determine and applicants may falsely claim to be from one
country where persecution is known to occur, yet really be from another
country in that region.
In addition to identifying fraud, assessing credibility poses a
challenge to asylum officers in making asylum decisions. As previously
discussed in this report, asylum officers must make a credibility
assessment regarding every applicant they interview. As shown in figure
6, the majority of asylum officers who responded to our survey reported
significant challenges to assessing credibility in about half or more
of the cases they adjudicated in the past year, including insufficient
time to prepare and conduct research prior to the interview (73
percent), insufficient time to conduct the interview (63 percent), the
lack of information regarding document validity (61 percent), the lack
of overseas information on applicants (59 percent), and the lack of
documents provided by applicants (54 percent). According to the Asylum
Division, given the preponderance of evidence standard, it is possible
to have reasonable doubts about whether applicants meet the definition
of a refugee and still correctly find that applicants met their burden
of establishing that their claim is true.:
Figure 6: Percentage of Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Who Reported
Significant Challenges to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More
of the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Type of challenge: Insufficient time to prepare and conduct research
prior to review;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 73.
Type of challenge: Insufficient time to probe in interview;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 63.
Type of challenge: Lack of information on document validity;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 61.
Type of challenge: Lack of overseas information on applicants;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 59.
Type of challenge: Lack of documents provided by applicant;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 54.
Type of challenge: My own inability to speak applicant's language;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 19.
Type of challenge: Lack of information on country conditions;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 15.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[End of figure]
Supervisory asylum officers also reported difficulties in carrying out
their fraud-related responsibilities. Supervisors are responsible for
identifying possible fraud trends as they review asylum cases from
multiple asylum officers and can identify patterns individual asylum
officers may not observe. Nevertheless, in responding to our survey, 54
percent of supervisors (21 of 39) reported it moderately or very
difficult to identify emerging trends in fraud in the time they have
available.
While asylum fraud presents a challenge to officers, its full extent is
not known and is being systematically assessed for the first time. In
March 2005, FDNS undertook an Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment because,
according to FDNS, asylum was a benefit program historically considered
to be one of USCIS's most fraud-prone or high-risk programs[Footnote
49] and reliable and comprehensive information about the types and
prevalence of fraud in asylum applications was not available. The
assessment randomly sampled 239 affirmative asylum applications filed
during a 6-month period in 2005 that were either issued a final
decision or placed on hold. FDNS Immigration Officers (FDNS-IO) were
required to conduct a series of identity and security checks, some of
which were mandatory at the time of adjudication, as well as additional
checks and research. The FDNS-IOs also requested overseas document
verification when they believed relevant information that would
substantiate a fraud finding could be obtained. However, according to
FDNS officials, as of July 2008, FDNS had not received a response on
almost half of the 72 documents it sent overseas for verification.
Other factors can also make it difficult to assess the full extent of
asylum fraud. As FDNS officials explained, an asylee's petition for
overseas relatives to join the asylee in the United States--a process
that can take years--can reveal that the stories of persecution an
asylee presented when applying for asylum are not always consistent
with information later provided by his or her relatives. The Director
of Fraud Prevention Programs in State's Bureau of Consular Affairs
confirmed that the petition process has uncovered information that
clearly demonstrated that the principal applicant's asylum claim was
fraudulent, including cases where personnel reached this conclusion
after interviewing relatives or conducting investigations. As of July
2008, FDNS had not finalized the Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment and
had not decided whether to do so without information from approximately
10 asylum termination interviews to be completed as a result of
information obtained during the Asylum Benefit Fraud Assessment.
[Footnote 50]
USCIS Designed Mechanisms to Help Asylum Officers Assess the
Authenticity of Claims:
In April 2005, the Asylum Division conducted a review of past cases in
which asylum applicants had alleged ties with terrorists or engaged in
terrorist activity, although ties may not have been known at the time
of adjudication. As a result, it identified vulnerabilities to
terrorism in the U.S. asylum system and found that many of the
vulnerabilities it identified were resolved with the 1995 asylum
reforms.[Footnote 51] However, the report also identified
vulnerabilities that remained postreform, including the lack of checks
to identify individuals, the possibility of an applicant's interpreter
perpetrating fraud, and vulnerabilities outside of its control.
[Footnote 52] According to information the Asylum Division provided, it
has since taken steps to address vulnerabilities within its control.
Some of these, and other mechanisms it has designed, can help asylum
officers identify fraud and assess credibility--specifically, identity
and security check requirements, fraud prevention teams with anti-fraud
responsibilities, monitoring applicants' interpreters during asylum
interviews, and tracking preparers suspected of fraud. However, because
the extent of asylum fraud and how it has changed over time is not
known, it is difficult to assess the effect of these measures on the
identification of fraud. Furthermore, it is difficult to know the
extent to which any of these measures have deterred fraud.
Identity and security checks. Security check requirements have
increased, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11,
and asylum staff at all levels viewed them as helping ensure the
integrity of asylum decisions. Asylum officers are required to ensure
multiple identity and security checks are conducted to confirm an
applicant's identity, identify applicants who pose a national security
or public safety risk, and resolve certain eligibility issues. Asylum
officers must confirm that all checks are initiated prior to issuing a
decision and obtain cleared results of checks before issuing a grant of
asylum.[Footnote 53]
Some identity and security checks are automatically initiated
immediately after an applicant files an asylum application at the USCIS
Service Center,[Footnote 54] however, many are initiated and completed
during the adjudication process. According to Asylum Office Directors,
in six of the eight Asylum Offices, asylum officers conduct the
required identity and security checks for the cases they adjudicate. In
the remaining two offices, asylum officers are designated, on a
rotational basis, to conduct identity and security checks for all
asylum officers in the office; however, each asylum officer must still
review the results of these checks for each case he or she is assigned.
Each supervisor must confirm that documentation of the security checks
is accurately completed in accordance with the decision being issued
before signing off on the decision.
The Asylum Division has worked with other federal entities to provide
asylum officers with access to databases to conduct identity and
security checks and expanded and implemented new identity and security
check requirements on existing checks. Some of these checks are
required for all USCIS adjudications; others are required only in an
asylum adjudication. Since that time, the Asylum Division has required
asylum officers to check the following databases:
* Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS). IBIS is a multi-agency
database aimed at improving border enforcement and facilitating
inspections of applicants for admission into the United States by
identifying threats to national security or public safety. The database
interfaces with another system that includes law enforcement data,
including information on immigration law violators, individuals with a
criminal history or who are subject to criminal investigations, or
suspected terrorists.
* U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT). In
2004, the Asylum Division and the Department of Homeland Security's US-
VISIT office worked together to develop a mechanism to provide asylum
officers with access to the US-VISIT database through a web-based
interface tool, US-VISIT SIT. US-VISIT collects, maintains, and shares
biometric and other information on certain foreign nationals entering
and exiting the United States. This tool allows asylum officers to
ensure that the applicant is not identified by US-VISIT as a national
security or public safety threat and that the applicant who appears for
the interview is the same individual who appeared earlier for
fingerprinting.
* State's Consular Consolidated Database (CCD). The Asylum Division
worked with State to provide asylum officers with access to information
in the CCD, which contains records about visa applications. The
database may contain biometric data and copies of information an
applicant presented to a State Consular Officer when applying for the
visa. Such data may be valuable to asylum officers in providing
information about the identity, previous travel history, method of
entry into the United States, or background of an asylum applicant.
The Asylum Division has also made several changes expanding the
requirements for several existing identity and security checks,
including the following:
* Since February 2003, asylum officers have been required to check the
name of every asylum applicant against the Deportable Alien Control
System (DACS) prior to adjudicating an asylum case in addition to when
the asylum application was filed.[Footnote 55] DACS contains records of
individuals who have been detained by ICE or placed in removal
proceedings. Prior to 2003, asylum officers completed this check when
the asylum application was filed and repeated the check only for cases
resulting in a grant of asylum.
* Since November 2006, asylum officers have been required to verify
that every asylum applicant aged 14 to 75 has been fingerprinted prior
to the asylum interview in addition to obtaining fingerprint results
prior to issuing a grant of asylum.[Footnote 56] This gives the asylum
officer the opportunity to review any available information associated
with the applicant's fingerprint records prior to or at the time of the
interview. The asylum officer must reschedule the interview if an
applicant has failed to be fingerprinted in advance. Prior to this
change, the requirement called only for asylum officers to obtain
fingerprint results in cases that resulted in a grant of asylum.
* When an asylum application is filed, RAPS automatically requests an
FBI name check for every applicant aged 14 to 79. Since 2002, asylum
officers have been required to obtain the results of the FBI name check
before granting asylum. Prior to 2002, this check was initiated at the
time an applicant filed an asylum application, but obtaining a result
was not necessary before issuing a grant. Since 2005, RAPS has
automatically initiated FBI name checks on aliases, maiden names, and
alternate dates of birth.[Footnote 57]
Seventy-eight percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey
reported that, overall, they found that identity and security checks
were moderately or very useful in identifying or providing information
on individuals who pose a risk to national security or public safety.
Moreover, as figure 7 shows, the majority found each of the required
identity and security checks to be moderately or very useful. However,
as noted by an asylum officer we interviewed, applicants who enter the
United States without inspection or who use a false identity are less
likely to be identified by these checks.
Figure 7: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on Individuals Who
Pose a Risk to National Security or Public Safety:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Type of security check: FBI fingerprints;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 89.
Type of security check: IBIS;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 87.
Type of security check: US-VISIT;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 79.
Type of security check: CCD;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 76.
Type of security check: DACS;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 60.
Type of security check: CIS[A];
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 60.
Type of security check: FBI name check;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 58.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[A] The Central Index System (CIS) is a database maintained by USCIS
that captures biographic and historical information on the status of
applicants seeking immigration benefits and other individuals subject
to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and tracks
the location of case files.
[End of figure]
According to the Asylum Division, checking applicants in the US-VISIT
system had significantly mitigated existing vulnerabilities in the
program by locking in an applicant's identity through fingerprint and
photograph at the earliest point possible in the application process
and searching against other biometric databases to confirm an
applicant's identity and identify potential derogatory information. The
Asylum Division further noted that, while the US-VISIT system is vast,
it is not an exhaustive warehouse of biometric prints obtained by all
U.S. government agencies or by other governments. According to an
Asylum Office Director, between fingerprints, FBI name checks, IBIS, US-
VISIT, and CCD, it would be reasonable to expect that a national
security risk would be identified if such information were contained in
one of the security databases.
In addition, 72 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey
reported that, overall, they found identity and security checks to be
moderately or very useful in providing information regarding an
applicant's eligibility for asylum. At least half of the respondents
found each of the required checks to be useful for this purpose, as
shown in figure 8.
Figure 8: Security Checks Asylum Officer Survey Respondents Viewed as
Moderately or Very Useful in Providing Information on an Applicant's
Eligibility for Asylum:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Type of security check: CCD
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 84.
Type of security check: US-VISIT;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 79.
Type of security check: IBIS;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 74.
Type of security check: FBI fingerprints;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 72.
Type of security check: DACS;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 66.
Type of security check: CIS[A];
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 63.
Type of security check: FBI name check;
Percentage of asylum officers responding: 53.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n=171. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[A] The Central Index System (CIS) is a database maintained by USCIS
that captures biographic and historical information on the status of
applicants seeking immigration benefits and other individuals subject
to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and tracks
the location of case files.
[End of figure]
Fraud-prevention teams. Asylum Offices have fraud-prevention teams
comprised of at least one FDNS immigration officer (FDNS-IO) and one
Fraud Prevention Coordinator (FPC) who are tasked with anti-fraud
responsibilities. USCIS assigned responsibilities to FDNS-IOs at Asylum
Offices that included tracking fraud patterns for FDNS, apprising
Asylum Offices of fraud trends, resolving national security "hits,"
addressing fraud-related leads provided by asylum officers, liaising
with law enforcement entities, and referring cases of suspected fraud
to ICE. FDNS-IOs are precluded from performing routine functions
associated with the adjudication process, such as the resolution of non-
national-security-related background checks or the review of suspect
documents. The work of FDNS-IOs is directed by local Asylum Office
management and by FDNS headquarters. As of July 2008, a total of 14
FDNS-IOs were located in Asylum Offices and, according to Asylum
Division staff, additional positions may be authorized in the future.
In addition, each Asylum Office has at least one FPC, usually a
supervisory asylum officer with additional fraud-related
responsibilities as a collateral duty. Duties vary and are directed by
local office management. FPCs may work closely with FDNS-IOs but, in
contrast to FDNS-IOs, FPCs have a direct role in supporting asylum
officers in their adjudication decisions. According to an official in
the Asylum Division's Operations Branch, FPCs may also review fraud
referrals that asylum officers make to the FDNS-IOs to ensure quality
and determine fraud trends.
The specific tasks performed by anti-fraud staff and who performs them
varied across offices. For example, either a FDNS-IO or a FPC might
prescreen applications for fraud indicators, coordinate requests for
document verification or overseas information, track interpreters or
preparers suspected of fraud, communicate fraud trends to asylum
officers, review national security "hits," participate in or
communicate with interagency task forces, or provide fraud-related
training to office staff.
Interpreter monitors. In an effort to combat the Asylum Division's
concern regarding fraud and quality of interpretation among some of the
interpreters that non-English speaking applicants are required to bring
to their interview, the Asylum Division began phasing in the use of
contracted telephonic interpreter monitors in the first half of 2006.
According to the Asylum Division's 2003 report on its interpreter
monitoring pilot program, investigations revealed that interpreters
were engaging in fraudulent behavior, such as altering asylum
applicants' testimony and coaching applicants during interviews. In May
2006, the Asylum Division reported that the interpreter monitoring
contractor had been unable to accommodate 11 to 13 percent of requests
for interpreter monitors in March and April 2006, and thus did not meet
its goal to provide monitors 90 percent of the time. The interpreter
monitoring program was intended as an interim step in combating
interpreter fraud and ensuring accurate interpretation in the
interview. USCIS plans to issue a rule that would require the Asylum
Division to provide professional interpreters. According to Asylum
Division officials, the Asylum Division has prepared a request for a
multiple-award contract for interpreter services and expects to have
the contract in place by the end of September 2008. As such, it would
curtail its approach of monitoring applicants' interpreters.
Nevertheless, asylum staff indicated that interpreter monitors have
improved the interviewing process and helped combat fraud. After an
initial assessment of the interim project in May 2006, the Asylum
Division concluded that monitors were successful in assisting asylum
officers in obtaining information from applicants and deterring
fraudulent interpreters, although the deterrent effect could not be
quantified. Asylum officers who responded to our survey also viewed
interpreter monitoring as successful in combating interpreter fraud and
helping genuine refugees communicate their claim. Specifically, 87
percent indicated that interpreter monitors were very or moderately
useful in deterring interpreters from intentionally misinterpreting,
while 55 percent reported that it is very or moderately easy to
identify interpreter fraud when interpreter monitors are used. Eighty-
two percent reported that interpreter monitors were very or moderately
useful in helping genuine refugees clearly communicate their claim and
avoid misunderstandings due to poor interpretation.
Tracking preparers. To help identify applications completed by
suspicious fraudulent preparers, in July 2007, the Asylum Division
began systematically tracking information on the preparer of each
asylum application. The Asylum Division noted the difficulties of
addressing fraud perpetrated by preparers--that is, individuals who
assist asylum applicants with the completion of their asylum
applications. Preparers of fraudulent claims have been known to produce
applications containing, for example, false claims of persecution and
coach applicants on how to exploit the sympathies of asylum officers.
The Asylum Division issued guidance in July 2007 that introduced new
procedures to collect preparer information and instructed asylum
officers to verify that USCIS Service Centers entered preparer
information into RAPS. The guidance instructs asylum officers to gather
information during the interview regarding the circumstances under
which the application was prepared, including who prepared the
application. According to the Asylum Division's Deputy Chief at the
time of our review, the division anticipates this effort will allow the
collection and analysis of data on preparers and could help identify
applications prepared by preparers determined to be fraudulent.
Other planned initiatives. The Asylum Division is also considering
various other anti-fraud efforts that are in various stages of planning
and have been highlighted as key initiatives for fiscal year 2008.
These plans include working with the Department of Defense to develop a
systematic way of processing fingerprints for asylum seekers through
Department of Defense systems, using software to scan applications to
identify common text and data, and furthering the exchange of
information with Canada and other countries. With respect to exchanging
information with Canada, for example, USCIS is exploring the
feasibility of systematically exchanging with Canada information
submitted by asylum seekers.[Footnote 58]
Assistance from Other Federal Entities That Could Help Asylum Officers
Assess the Authenticity of Claims Is Not Always Available:
Federal entities outside the Asylum Division and FDNS also have a role
in combating fraud and confirming the validity of claims, but their
assistance to asylum officers has been hindered by a lack of resources,
competing priorities, and--in some cases--confidentiality requirements
intended to protect asylum applicants and their families.
ICE's Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL). Although the majority of
asylum officers who responded to our survey reported it was difficult
for them to identify fraudulent documents, the ability of the federal
government's forensic crime laboratory dedicated to detecting
fraudulent documents to assist asylum officers has been hindered by
competing priorities and a lack of exemplar documents--an authentic
travel or identity document FDL uses to make comparisons in forensic
examinations. Due to resource limitations, FDL prioritizes cases so
that those in which the individual is detained receive highest priority
and requests from asylum officers--those involving individuals with no
set court date--are among those receiving the lowest priority.
According to FDL data for fiscal year 2007, when FDL responded to
requests from Asylum Offices and other entities with the same relative
priority, it took an average of 122 days, with response times ranging
from 1 to 487 days. Because the Asylum Division recognizes it is
unlikely that FDL will respond to a document examination request before
an adjudication decision must be made given asylum processing time
requirements, asylum officers are instructed to submit documents to FDL
if they or their supervisor believe that the analysis may change the
outcome of the decision.
In addition, according to FDL's Unit Chief, FDL often does not have the
kinds of documents asylum seekers often submit to asylum officers to
support their claims, such as overseas birth certificates, marriage
certificates, or medical records. Recognizing that FDL's ability to
verify certain types of documents is hindered by its lack of relevant
exemplars, the Asylum Division requires each Asylum Office to have at
least two FDL-trained staff to provide training to other officers, as
discussed earlier in this report. In addition to assisting officers in
identifying fraudulent documents, these staff are to advise officers on
whether FDL is likely to have an exemplar for the document they want
verified.
State and USCIS overseas offices. State and USCIS overseas offices
[Footnote 59] can play an important role in helping asylum officers
distinguish between genuine and fraudulent claims by providing overseas
information on asylum applicants and their claims. According to USCIS
officials we interviewed, overseas investigations may be one of the
best methods of verifying the facts alleged by applicants. A FDNS
official further explained that far more fraud could be uncovered if
more work were conducted overseas, and this is especially true for
asylum cases. State and USCIS may be able to provide information on a
particular asylum case by verifying or obtaining overseas documents,
such as medical or employment records, by providing an assessment of
the accuracy an applicant's assertion about country conditions or the
applicant's situation, or by engaging in investigations.[Footnote 60]
In our surveys we asked asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers
about the usefulness of obtaining overseas medical and employment
records, or verification of such records. Eighty-two percent of asylum
officers and 90 percent of supervisory asylum officers (36 of 40) who
responded thought that these records or verification of these records
would be moderately or very useful in adjudicating cases. Several
respondents explained that overseas information can help them verify
accounts of medical treatment, encounters with police or military
forces, or political affiliation that relate to an applicant's claim.
Furthermore, about half the asylum officers indicated they needed, but
did not have such information (53 percent for medical records; 49
percent for employment records) in about half or more of the cases they
adjudicated in the past year. Preliminary results of the Asylum Benefit
Fraud Assessment further suggest the value of obtaining overseas
information on asylum applications. USCIS reported preliminary data in
January 2007 that indicated they received an overseas response for 13
requests for document verification, of which 9 were found to support a
finding that the asylum claim was fraudulent. USCIS's Refugee, Asylum,
and International Operations Directorate, of which the Asylum Division
is a component, proposed creating 54 new positions in fiscal year 2008,
including positions in several overseas posts to be focused on fraud
detection and national security. The fiscal year 2008 plan requires
approval from State for the overseas positions. As of July 2008, State
had approved most of them. According to the Asylum Division's Acting
Deputy Chief, the increased capacity may enable increased assistance to
asylum officers, although it is too early to determine to what degree.
Despite adjudicators' views that overseas information can be useful,
overseas offices' ability to respond to asylum officers' requests for
assistance has been hindered due to competing priorities, resource
constraints, and challenges associated with respecting the
confidentiality of asylum applicants to avoid placing them or their
relatives at a greater risk of harm. Recognizing demands on overseas
resources, the Asylum Division instructs asylum officers to limit
overseas requests to those cases where such information is essential to
making a final asylum determination. According to State procedures, in
answering requests for specific information on asylum cases, it
generally gives priority to requests from immigration courts over
requests from asylum officers, although it also gives priority to
requests from Asylum Division headquarters regarding sensitive cases. A
Deputy Director within State explained that requests from immigration
courts are given higher priority because individuals appearing before
an immigration judge face the possibility of deportation.
Confidentiality requirements designed to protect applicants' safety can
further constrain obtaining overseas information because making such
inquiries of agencies of foreign governments can put asylum applicants
or their families at risk by releasing information to the public or
alleged persecutors.
These limitations notwithstanding, USCIS and State have worked together
to improve asylum officers' access to information regarding asylum
applicants' visa applications. Since May 2006, asylum officers have had
access to State's CCD. Because not all information included on the visa
application is captured in CCD, the Asylum Division issued procedures
in March 2007 on how asylum officers can request full visa application
information from State if such additional information is material to
the applicant's claim and can influence the adjudication decision.
These procedures were disseminated close to the time we conducted our
surveys. Ninety-one percent of asylum officers and 93 percent of
supervisory asylum officers (37 of 40) who responded thought that
having the entire visa application in addition to what is available in
CCD would be moderately or very useful in adjudicating cases. Fifty-
five percent of asylum officers said they needed, but did not have, the
entire visa application in about half or more of the cases they
adjudicated in the past year.
The process for requesting overseas information on asylum applicants,
other than visa applications, varies among Asylum Offices, and USCIS
and State have been working on improving procedures for making these
requests. According to Asylum Division officials, asylum officers are
to consult their supervisors when they desire overseas assistance.
However, the process for initiating requests for overseas information-
-that is, whether requests are made through FDNS or Asylum personnel--
varies among Asylum Offices. Seventy-four percent of asylum officers
and 43 percent of supervisors (16 of 37) said they did not understand
or had no more than a slight understanding of the process their office
used for requesting overseas verification services. In June 2008, the
Asylum Division's Acting Deputy Chief told us that USCIS and State were
in the process of developing procedures that streamline the current
process for requesting overseas assistance. According to an Operations
Branch official, once the procedures are updated, the Asylum Division
plans to provide training on the new procedures.
ICE's Office of Investigations. USCIS and ICE have an agreement that
USCIS will refer articulated suspicions of fraud to ICE, which will
make a decision whether to accept or decline a case for investigation
within 60 days. If ICE declines a case or does not respond within that
time, the FDNS-IO is responsible for taking further action.[Footnote
61] According to the Chief of FDNS, ICE declines about two-thirds of
FDNS's requests for investigation. FDNS data showed that of the 58
requests that FDNS-IOs at Asylum Offices sent to ICE for investigation
during fiscal year 2007, ICE had declined 33, accepted 12, and had not
made a decision to accept or decline 13 requests as of July 2008.
According to the Acting Chief of ICE's Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit,
ICE data showed that in fiscal year 2007, ICE opened 128 asylum fraud
investigations, 70 of which were based on USCIS referrals. ICE
investigations of asylum fraud can result from fraud referrals made by
confidential informants, federal and local law enforcement personnel,
as well as USCIS personnel. USCIS referrals can include those from
asylum officers, FDNS-IOs, or district examiners. However, officials
from the Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit explained it is difficult for
ICE to identify the exact number of asylum fraud investigations because
of the way a case may be recorded. Cases involving asylum fraud often
involve other types of fraud, such as identity or marriage fraud, and
may be recorded under a category relating to other fraud found in the
investigation. Furthermore, a single conviction may involve an
individual who was associated with numerous sham asylum applications.
According to ICE officials, resource constraints preclude ICE from
investigating all fraud referrals. Asylum fraud is difficult to
investigate and resource-intensive because asylum claims often lack
supporting evidence to facilitate investigations, according to the
Acting Chief of ICE's Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit. These
investigations can take several years to complete. According to ICE,
its investigations of asylum fraud most often target larger-scale
conspiracies, and individual applicants are given a lower priority. ICE
also gives asylum cases special attention when asylum applicants from
certain countries might pose a threat to national security.[Footnote
62]
Asylum Division personnel and Asylum Office fraud staff view ICE
investigations of asylum fraud as a critical component in combating
asylum fraud and, along with prosecutions, the best way to deter it. At
one Asylum Office we visited, the Director stated that she believed
prior local ICE activity had deterred fraudulent asylum applications.
Furthermore, 42 percent of 107 asylum officers and 45 percent of 33
supervisory asylum officers who provided survey comments regarding what
can be done to deter or cut down on asylum fraud shared views that
actions such as investigating, prosecuting, or assigning penalties are
needed to help deter fraud. In March 2006, we reported that taking
appropriate and consistent actions against immigration benefit
violators is an important element of fraud control and deterrence.
[Footnote 63]
Representatives from these and other federal entities outside USCIS
participated in the Asylum Division's Fraud Prevention Conference in
December 2007, where conference leaders acknowledged that combating
fraud requires both intra-and intergovernmental efforts. They further
stressed the importance of finding administrative solutions to fraud,
as prosecutions of asylum fraud are infrequent. The conference provided
a forum for fraud detection and prevention personnel, investigators,
attorneys, and personnel from USCIS, ICE, DOJ, and State to share
information on current fraud trends, including specifics on suspected
preparers who assisted, recruited, and sometimes duped clients to make
fraudulent claims; methods used to make fraudulent claims; and
indicators used to detect fraud.
Asylum Officers Report Time Constraints Affect Adjudications;
Adjudication Requirements Have Increased While the Productivity
Standard Is Unchanged:
Asylum Officers and Supervisors Report Asylum Officers Have
Insufficient Time to Thoroughly Adjudicate Cases, but Management Views
Are Mixed:
The majority of asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers who
responded to our survey reported that the 4 hours, on average, they
have to complete an asylum case is insufficient to be thorough--that
is, to complete the case in a manner consistent with their procedures
manual and training--although views among managers varied. The 4-hour
average is based on the productivity standard, which requires
management to assign asylum officers work equivalent to 18 asylum cases
in a 2-week period, allowing for 4 hours of training each week. The
productivity standard is one of the elements in the asylum officers'
performance work plan that is used to rate an asylum officer's
performance. As table 2 shows, 28 percent of asylum officers and 28
percent of supervisory asylum officers (11 of 40) reported that asylum
officers need about 4 hours or less to complete an asylum case.
However, 65 percent of asylum officers and 73 percent of supervisors
(29 of 40) reported that asylum officers needed more than the standard
4 hours to complete a case.[Footnote 61]
Table 2: Asylum Officer and Supervisory Asylum Officer Survey
Respondents' Views on the Time Asylum Officers Need to Complete an
Asylum Case:
Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: About 4 hours or less;
Percentage of asylum officers: 28;
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 28.
Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: About 5-6 hours;
Percentage of asylum officers: 48;
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 58.
Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: About 7 hours or more;
Percentage of asylum officers: 17;
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 15.
Estimated hours needed to complete asylum cases: Unable to estimate;
Percentage of asylum officers: 8;
Percentage of supervisory asylum officers: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Notes: Asylum officer responses: n=171.
Supervisory officer responses: n=40.
There was some item-nonresponse variation across the survey items.
Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
[End of table]
Many asylum officer survey respondents indicated time constraints
hindered their ability to thoroughly adjudicate cases. For example, of
138 respondents who provided narrative comments explaining how they
manage their caseload when they have insufficient time, 39 percent
wrote that they rush through their work or cut back on doing country-
condition research, interviewing, completing identity and security
checks, or writing the assessment. Moreover, 43 percent of asylum
officers reported that, during the past year, productivity standards
hindered their ability to properly adjudicate in about half or more of
their cases.
Asylum Officers are taught at AOBTC that they must work under time
constraints and develop interviewing skills that will enable them to
gather all the information they need. However, they are also informed
of the danger in rushing through an interview, which could lead the
asylum officer to incorrectly assess credibility. In conducting
interviews with asylum officers, we asked 12 officers how much time
they spend conducting an asylum interview. Eleven of the 12 asylum
officers said that, of the 4 hours they generally have available for a
case, they typically spend between 1 and 2 hours conducting the
applicant interview. Nearly 30 percent of asylum officers reported that
they were able to elicit sufficient information in asylum interviews to
properly evaluate the claim no more than about half of the time.
Further, 92 percent reported that having more time to probe in an
interview would moderately or greatly help them elicit better
information during the asylum applicant interview to properly evaluate
the claim, including assessing the applicant's eligibility and
credibility. The same percentage reported that having more time to
prepare for and conduct research prior to an interview would moderately
or greatly help them elicit better information during the asylum
applicant interview to properly evaluate the claim, including assessing
the applicant's eligibility and credibility.
In addition, when asked what would help them better identify fraud,
asylum officer survey respondents who provided comments most frequently
said that having more time would help them better identify fraud, with
about 40 percent of the 98 respondents making such comments. For
example, an asylum officer explained that although more tools to detect
fraud are always useful, they are of little or no use if asylum
officers are not given either time or correct training to use such
tools. Another asylum officer stated that attorneys and preparers know
that asylum officers do not have time to check into the claim and,
thus, the "system is perpetuating fraud by not giving [asylum officers]
time to concentrate on the adjudication." Sixty-four percent of
supervisors (25 of 39) who responded to our survey indicated that
asylum officers were not always completing a fraud referral sheet when
they should in at least some of the cases they reviewed. Of the 111
asylum officer survey respondents who explained what prevented them
from referring suspected fraud cases to their FDNS-IO, about half
attributed this to time limitations.
One of USCIS's strategic goals is to combat fraud and, in 2007, the
Asylum Division included measures for combating fraud in its
performance work plan for supervisory asylum officers;[Footnote 65]
however, it has not explicitly included measures for combating fraud in
its performance work plan for asylum officers. Several asylum officers
who provided comments to our survey explained that a disincentive
exists to take the time to make a fraud referral when they suspect
fraud. According to one asylum officer, there is no reason to make a
fraud referral because the performance work plan does not reward it and
it takes a lot of extra time. In October 2007, in response to a DHS
Office of Inspector General recommendation,[Footnote 66] USCIS stated
it plans to ensure that adjudicators' performance work plans include a
measure for fraud detection--a recommendation that USCIS concurred with
and plans to address. We reported in March 2003 that organizations
should align individual performance expectations with organizational
goals to improve performance by helping personnel connect their daily
activities and organizational goals and encourage them to [Footnote 67]
achieve these goals. As such, we agree with the Office of the Inspector
General's recommendation. Asylum Division officials told us in July
2008 that they had begun discussing this recommendation with USCIS and
were looking to USCIS to take the lead on addressing the issue.
Although most asylum officers and supervisors reported that asylum
officers needed more time to thoroughly adjudicate asylum cases,
management views were mixed. Five of the eight Asylum Office Directors
said that they believed that the 4 hours asylum officers are given to
complete a case was not reasonable, while three considered it to be
reasonable. One Asylum Office Director elaborated that asylum officers
do not struggle to complete cases within 4 hours, in part because the
majority of the asylum cases adjudicated in that office are older cases
that are usually easier to adjudicate. This Director explained that
older cases may be easier if country conditions have changed so
dramatically over time that the asylum claim can no longer be
sustained, or if they were filed before asylum reform solely for the
purpose of obtaining employment authorization. In the latter case,
often the asylum claim is easily determined to be unsupported. The
Asylum Division recognizes that asylum officers must work under time
constraints and that the tasks and time involved in completing a
particular case may increase due to factors such as a complicated story
that takes additional time to fully elicit or several dependents being
listed on an application. Nevertheless, the Chief of the Asylum
Division said that the 4-hour average was sufficient and was not
convinced that more time would lead to increased adjudication quality.
Also, asylum officer performance work plan guidance states that under
extenuating circumstances, supervisors can allow asylum officers to
take more than the 4 days they typically have to provide their written
decision to their supervisor.[Footnote 68]
Adjudication Requirements Have Increased, While the Productivity
Standard, Which Was Established Without Empirical Data, Has Remained
the Same:
Since 1999, asylum adjudication requirements have increased while the
productivity standard, which was established without empirical data,
has remained unchanged. As previously discussed in this report, since
September 11, 2001, the Asylum Division added requirements for asylum
officers to check additional identity and security databases and
increased the procedural requirements regarding when to conduct certain
checks. The Asylum Division estimates that 10 percent of asylum
officers' time would be needed to conduct security checks and, in 2004,
began including this in making staffing projections. We discussed this
projection with five of the eight Asylum Office Directors we
interviewed. Three of the five Asylum Office Directors estimated that
asylum officers spent 10 percent of their time conducting security
checks, and two stated that asylum officers spent more than 10 percent
of their time conducting these checks. According to one of these
Directors, 30 minutes of the 4 hours asylum officers generally have to
complete a case is needed to conduct identity and security checks, and
a QA/T explained that if the results of an identity and security check
identify a potential concern, resolving that concern can add an hour to
the adjudication process. In addition, beginning in 2007, asylum
officers have been required to confirm that Service Center staff
entered preparer information in RAPS and question the applicant if no
information was entered, as well as contact, swear in, and document
contact with interpreter monitors. Furthermore, all of the eight Asylum
Office Directors we interviewed commented that, over time, asylum cases
have become more complex or that requirements for completing cases have
increased. According to one Asylum Office Director, while tools have
been provided to deal with the increased complexity of fraud in asylum
applications, the asylum officers have not been given more time to use
these tools.
[A Supervisory Asylum Officer on the 4-Hour Case Model:
The four hour case model has been used for many years, however over
those years, many procedures have been added to the cases, many cases
have become more complicated than those the Asylum Division handled at
the inception of the asylum program, and the law has also evolved and
become more complex. The applicants have become more sophisticated in
their attempts at committing fraud, as well, and this development has
caused a need for more investigation into the cases and more detailed
lines of questioning. Additionally, since 9/11, [asylum officers] have
been given more responsibility with regard to the review of computer
security checks and identity checks, which takes extra time...All of
this adds time to a case adjudication, yet we are still following the
four hour case model. --Supervisory asylum officer survey respondent.]
Although the overall caseload of the Asylum Division has steadily
declined from about 450,000 cases in 2002 to 83,000 cases in 2007, this
has not translated into asylum officers having more time to adjudicate
asylum cases.[Footnote 69] If local management is not able to assign
asylum officers 18 asylum cases per 2-week period, it assigns asylum
officers other Asylum Division work that is equivalent to 18 asylum
cases to compensate for fewer asylum cases. Given the other work
assigned, asylum officers continue to have an average of 4 hours under
the productivity standard to complete each asylum case assigned.
According to six of the eight Asylum Office Directors, asylum officers
in their offices are generally being assigned work that equates to 18
asylum cases--that is, they are assigned asylum interviews in
combination with other work. To compensate for being assigned fewer
than the 18 asylum cases, asylum officers adjudicated nonasylum cases
(i.e., credible fear, reasonable fear, and NACARA cases) and performed
additional work such as administrative closures and research projects.
Because of the decline in overall caseload, the Asylum Division plans
to take on new responsibilities for asylum officers that are similar to
their current work, such as adjudicating Refugee/Asylum Relative
Petitions. The adjudication of these petitions will be modeled on the
current asylum adjudication process, requiring interviews and checks
against US-VISIT, in addition to the other mandatory identity and
security checks. The division also increased the number of asylum
officers assigned to overseas details from about 12 officers in 2007 to
40 officers in 2008.
According to the Asylum Division Chief, the productivity standard was
established in 1999 as the result of discussions with the asylum
officers' union and management's judgment. The Asylum Division had not
conducted a time study or gathered empirical data. At that time, the
productivity standard was reduced from 24 cases to 18 cases in a 2-week
period. Asylum Division training materials explain that the
productivity standard helps the Asylum Division achieve its mission of
protecting refugees, while meeting quality and timeliness goals.
Further, if the productivity standard is set too low, the Asylum
Division would not have a reasonable ability to keep pace with new
receipts given the staff available, whereas if it is set too high, the
quality of adjudications would likely suffer. Asylum Division officials
further explained that setting the productivity standard too low could
result in adjudication delays that might encourage spurious filings of
asylum applications for the purpose of obtaining employment
authorizations. In May 2003, we reported that time studies, in general,
have the substantial benefit of providing quantitative information that
can be used to create objective and defensible measures of workload and
can account for time differences in completing work that can vary in
complexity. However, such studies do place some burden on personnel
during data collection and involve other costs as well.[Footnote 70]
Without empirical data on which to base the asylum officer's
productivity standard, the Asylum Division is not in the position to
know whether asylum officers have sufficient time to conduct thorough
asylum adjudications.
Key Factors Affecting Immigration Judge Adjudications Are Similar to
Those Identified by Asylum Officers:
Immigration judges' responses to our survey indicated that key factors
affecting their adjudications were similar to those that asylum
officers identified. As shown in figure 9, of the 11 aspects of
adjudicating asylum cases we inquired about in our survey, immigration
judge survey respondents most frequently cited verifying fraud (88
percent) as a moderately or very challenging aspect of adjudicating
asylum cases. The vast majority also reported time limitations (82
percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as moderately or very
challenging.
Figure 9: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who
Reported Aspects of Adjudicating Asylum Cases to Be Moderately or Very
Challenging:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Verifying fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 88.1.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Time limitations;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 82.3.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Assessing credibility;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 80.8.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Managing your caseload;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 77.1.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Attorney preparedness;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 76.9.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Rendering oral decisions
immediately after hearing cases;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 70.7.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Identifying suspected fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 70.6.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Identifying national security
risks;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 66.7.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Reserving a decision for later
delivery;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 60.1.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Staying current with case law;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 58.
Aspects of adjudicating asylum cases: Staying current with country
conditions;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 54.1.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[End of figure]
Immigration Judges Reported Challenges in Identifying Fraud and
Assessing Credibility:
Most immigration judges who responded to our survey identified fraud
and assessing credibility as significant challenges in adjudicating
asylum cases. In assessing an applicant's eligibility for asylum,
immigration judges consider adverse factors, including the use of fraud
to gain admittance to the United States and inconsistent statements
made by the asylum applicant. As an immigration judge respondent
explained, "it is very easy to suspect fraud, but as in all civil
cases, fraud is one of the most difficult things to actually prove.
Unless the DHS... can prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence,
or a respondent admits facts constituting fraud, the suspicion of fraud
will remain just that."
Of the various types of fraud that we inquired about in our survey, the
majority of immigration judges who responded reported that all the
types of fraud were moderately or very difficult to identify, with
attorney fraud (66 percent) and identity fraud (66 percent) most
frequently reported as difficult to identify, as shown in figure 10.:
Figure 10: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey
Respondents Reported as Moderately or Very Difficult to Identify:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Type of fraud: Suspected attorney fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 66.2.
Type of fraud: Suspected identity fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 66.2.
Type of fraud: Suspected preparer fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 56.6.
Type of fraud: Suspected document fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 55.8.
Type of fraud: Suspected fraud in the claim;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 53.9.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n= 159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[End of figure]
Of the various types of fraud that we inquired about in our survey, the
majority of immigration judges reported that all the types of fraud
presented a challenge in at least some of the cases that they
adjudicated over the last year. For example, as shown in figure 11, in
at least some of the cases they adjudicated over the past year, 94
percent of immigration judges reported that suspected fraud in the
claim presented a challenge, and 93 percent reported that suspected
document fraud presented a challenge.
Figure 11: Types of Suspected Fraud That Immigration Judge Survey
Respondents Reported as Presenting a Challenge in Some or All of the
Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Type of fraud: Suspected fraud in the claim;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 94.
Type of fraud: Suspected document fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 93.
Type of fraud: Suspected preparer fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 85.
Type of fraud: Suspected identity fraud;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 73.
Type of fraud: Suspected attorney in the claim;
Percentage of immigration judges responding: 54.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[End of figure]
Most immigration judges who responded to our survey also reported
assessing credibility as a challenging aspect of adjudicating asylum
cases. In each decision, an immigration judge must include a detailed
credibility finding. Eighty-one percent of immigration judges reported
that assessing credibility was a moderately or very challenging aspect
of adjudicating asylum cases and an area in which they needed
additional training. Further, 48 percent of immigration judges cited
assessing credibility as one of their top three greatest challenges in
adjudicating asylum cases. In addition, a NAIJ representative stated
that assessing credibility is very difficult and that immigration
judges would be better able to explore issues relevant to credibility
if they had more time in court to review testimony and evidence.:
The majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported
impediments to assessing credibility in about half or more of the cases
they adjudicated over the past year, including a lack of documentary
evidence (70 percent), lack of other overseas information on applicants
(61 percent), and lack of document verification from overseas (56
percent), as shown in figure 12. An immigration judge survey respondent
shared the view that because of a high level of fraud and abuse in
asylum cases and in the process, any case-specific evidence the ICE
trial attorneys could present to prove or disprove an asylum
applicant's case would be extremely useful in trying to reach a fair
and just result for the parties. Although lack of overseas information
was reportedly an impediment to immigration judges' ability to assess
credibility, according to EOIR, it is the role of the ICE trial
attorney or the asylum applicant to gather information from overseas
agencies and verify the authenticity of documents.[Footnote 71]
Figure 12: Percentage of Immigration Judge Survey Respondents Who
Reported Impediments to Assessing Credibility in about Half or More of
the Asylum Cases They Adjudicated over the Past Year:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of documentary evidence;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 69.9.
Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of other overseas information
on applicants;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 60.9.
Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of document verification from
overseas;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 56.4.
Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of document verification from
FDL;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 44.2.
Impediment to assessing credibility: Insufficient time to prepare for
and review cases;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 39.4.
Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of a record from the asylum
officer's interview;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 25.
Impediment to assessing credibility: Lack of information on country
conditions;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 16.6.
Impediment to assessing credibility: Quality of interpretation in the
courtroom;
Percentage of immigration judges respondents: 8.4.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: n=159. There was some item-nonresponse variation across the
survey items.
[End of figure]
In response to reforms directed by the Attorney General in 2006, EOIR
designed the Fraud and Abuse Program that established a formal
procedure for immigration judges, BIA members, and other EOIR staff to
report suspected instances of immigration fraud or abuse. Prior to the
implementation of this new program, immigration judges reported
suspected fraud on an ad hoc basis primarily through management
channels or EOIR's Attorney Discipline Program.:
The goals of the Fraud and Abuse Program include:
* protecting the integrity of proceedings before EOIR;
* referring, where appropriate, information to either law enforcement
or a disciplinary authority;[Footnote 72]
* encouraging and supporting investigations and prosecutions; and:
* providing immigration judges, BIA members, and other EOIR staff with
source materials to aid in screening for fraudulent activity.
According to EOIR, the program improves immigration judges' ability to
identify fraud by providing examples of prevalent forms of fraud and
abuse and suggestions for the screening of boilerplate claims and
common addresses. The program issues a monthly newsletter conveying
such information and has also established a Web site.
EOIR provided some training on the Fraud and Abuse Program. Although
the majority of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported
being somewhat or not at all familiar with EOIR's new Fraud and Abuse
Program, EOIR was in the process of informing immigration judges of
this program when we conducted our survey during May through July 2007.
As of July 2008, the manager of the program had conducted presentations
at 26 immigration courts and at the annual immigration judge
conference. A NAIJ representative stated that the Fraud and Abuse
Program presentation that immigration judges received during the annual
immigration judge conference was useful, but because the program was
new, NAIJ had not received feedback from immigration judges indicating
their use of the program.
According to EOIR, the Fraud and Abuse program is tracking all incoming
referrals. As of July 2008, the program had received 132 referrals,
including referrals of suspected asylum fraud and document fraud.
Twenty-six of the 132 referrals were made by immigration judges.
Patterns in referrals will be used to alert EOIR staff and other
entities to fraud schemes. According to EOIR, as the Fraud and Abuse
Program is relatively new, it remains flexible to respond to agency
needs. The program has surveyed staff who attended the presentations at
immigration courts about additional services they would like from the
program and, according to EOIR officials, solicited immigration judges'
input in July 2008 to develop ideas for additional training, among
other things. EOIR officials stated that the Fraud and Abuse Program
Manager has developed internal benchmarks of performance to assess the
program, such as responding to all referrals within 5 days and
reviewing inactive cases every 60 days.
Immigration Judges Reported Facing Time Constraints and EOIR Has Taken
Some Steps to Address This Challenge:
Most immigration judges who responded to our survey reported time
constraints as a challenge in adjudicating asylum cases, and EOIR has
taken some steps to mitigate these challenges. Specifically, 82 percent
of immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that time
limitations were moderately or very challenging in adjudicating asylum
cases and 77 percent reported that managing caseload was moderately or
very challenging. The fact that the growth in the number of onboard
immigration judges has not kept pace with overall growth in caseload
and case completions, which include asylum cases, may contribute to
this challenge. While, from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the number
of onboard immigration judges increased by 2 (from 214 to 216
immigration judges), caseload, which includes newly filed and reopened
cases and cases pending from prior years, rose 14 percent from about
442,000 to about 506,000 and completions rose 20 percent from about
274,000 to about 328,000. The average caseload per onboard immigration
judge rose 13 percent from 2,067 cases in fiscal year 2002 to 2,343
cases in fiscal year 2007.
According to a NAIJ representative, time constraints can have an effect
on the quality of decisions. The representative further explained that
if a case needs to be delayed or rescheduled, it may be rescheduled as
much as a full year later because of the volume of cases on an
immigration judge's schedule. According to EOIR, both an immigration
judge's overall caseload and the way the immigration judge manages that
caseload affect the pressures the immigration judge experiences on the
bench. A heavy caseload may limit an immigration judge's ability to
manage comfortably.
[A U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge on Time Constraints Facing
Immigration Judges:
A single [Immigration] Judge has to dispose of 1,400 cases a year or
nearly twenty-seven cases a week, or more than five each business day,
simply to stay abreast of his docket. I fail to see how Immigration
Judges can be expected to make thorough and competent findings of fact
and conclusions of law under these circumstances. This is especially
true given the unique nature of immigration hearings. Aliens frequently
do not speak English, so the Immigration Judge must work with a
translator, and the Immigration Judge normally must go over particular
testimony several times before he can be confident that he is getting
an accurate answer from the alien. Hearings, particularly in asylum
cases, are highly fact intensive and depend upon the presentation and
consideration of numerous details and documents to determine issues of
credibility and to reach factual conclusions. This can take no small
amount of time depending on the nature of the alien's testimony.--The
Honorable John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 2nd Circuit in addressing the U.S. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, April 2006.]
Nearly all immigration judge survey respondents also reported needing
more than the 4 hours off the bench that is provided for them to handle
administrative matters.[Footnote 73] Fifty-two percent reported that
they need more than 8 hours per week for administrative tasks and 45
percent said they need about 5 to 8 hours. Sixty-nine percent reported
that they did not use their administrative time as intended about half
the time; instead, they used that time to hear cases.
According to EOIR, EOIR monitors the caseload of each immigration court
to identify courts that have been unable to meet their established
goals for timely case adjudication and provides assistance to help
those courts meet these goals. In 2006, we reported that EOIR helped
courts address growing caseloads by detailing immigration judges, using
technology, transferring responsibility for hearing locations, and
establishing new courts.[Footnote 74] EOIR informed us in 2007 that it
continues to employ these mechanisms. In 2007, when we surveyed
immigration judges, 57 percent reported that having a visiting
immigration judge detailed to their court somewhat or greatly helped
their ability to manage their caseload, and 40 percent reported having
immigration judges from other courts hear cases via videoconference
somewhat or greatly helped their ability to manage their caseload.
In addition, because of the volume of cases that immigration judges
handle, EOIR advises immigration judges to issue oral decisions
immediately after hearing a case, deeming it generally to be the most
efficient way to complete cases.[Footnote 75] However, 71 percent of
immigration judges who responded to our survey reported that rendering
an oral decision immediately after a hearing was moderately or very
challenging. According to a NAIJ representative, oral decisions are
difficult because immigration judges are trying to balance multiple
tasks at once during a hearing--listening carefully to the testimony,
asking follow-up questions, and applying case law correctly. Having
time to reflect after listening to testimony, and having time to
prepare a written decision would result in better decisions. However,
according to EOIR, rendering oral decisions following a hearing allows
both sides to hear the decision while the evidence is fresh in their
minds and then make an informed choice whether to appeal the decision.
Furthermore, immigration judges who reserve decisions for later quickly
develop a backlog.
According to EOIR, issues resulting from heavy caseloads are best
addressed by increasing the number of immigration judges and staff
available. To help immigration judges better manage their caseload,
EOIR requested funding to hire 240 additional staff for immigration
courts. According to EOIR, in developing its request, it considered
budget guidance and the number of positions it could reasonably expect
to fill in a given year. One hundred and twenty new positions were
requested and funded in fiscal year 2007, 20 of which were immigration
judge positions. Although EOIR requested funding for the remaining 120
positions in fiscal year 2008, it did not receive its full budget
request. As a result, EOIR abolished its plans to hire an additional
120 positions in fiscal year 2008, including 20 immigration judge
positions. Prior to the hiring of additional staff, most immigration
judges who responded to our survey reported that having additional law
clerks (98 percent), additional immigration judges (84 percent), and
additional administrative court staff (77 percent) would moderately or
greatly improve their ability to carry out their responsibilities.
According to EOIR, as of May 2008, it was in the process of hiring
approximately 38 immigration judges, comprised of newly authorized
positions and replacements for attrition. Until all authorized
immigration court staff are on board, it is too soon to determine the
extent to which increased staffing will affect immigration judges'
ability to manage their caseload.
Conclusions:
Adjudicating asylum cases is a challenging undertaking because asylum
officers do not always have the means to determine which claims are
authentic and which are fraudulent. USCIS has taken steps to instill
quality and strengthen the integrity of the asylum decision-making
process. However, asylum officers still face adjudication challenges,
including asylum fraud, lack of information from entities outside USCIS
that could help assess the authenticity of claims, and increased
responsibilities without additional time to carry them out. With
potentially serious consequences for asylum applicants if they are
incorrectly denied asylum and for the United States if criminals or
terrorists are granted asylum, asylum officers must make the best
decision they can within the constraints that are placed on them.
The mechanisms USCIS designed to promote quality and integrity in
decision making can be better utilized to decrease the risk that
incorrect asylum decisions are made. Eliciting information through
applicant interviews is a challenging and critical component of an
asylum officer's ability to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent
claims. By supplementing existing training with additional
opportunities for asylum officers to observe skilled interviewers, the
Asylum Division could improve asylum officers' ability to elicit needed
information during an applicant interview to help distinguish between a
genuine and fraudulent claim. In addition, by developing a framework to
solicit asylum officers' and supervisors' views of their training needs
in a structured and consistent manner, the Asylum Division would help
ensure that headquarters and Asylum Offices have more complete
information from which to make training decisions. Furthermore, by more
fully implementing its quality review framework, the Asylum Division
would be in a better position to identify deficiencies in the quality
of asylum decisions asylum officers make, identify the root causes of
such deficiencies, and take appropriate action, such as focusing
training opportunities.
Insufficient time for asylum officers to adjudicate cases can undermine
the efficacy of the tools that asylum officers do have, as well as
USCIS's goals to ensure quality and combat fraud. We recognize that
conducting an empirical study of the time asylum officers need to
complete a thorough adjudication, including conducting increased
security checks and referring instances of suspected fraud when
appropriate, would involve some expenditure of resources. However,
doing so would better position the Asylum Division to know whether it
is providing asylum officers with the time needed to do their job in
accordance with their procedures manual and training. More recent
tools, such as additional identity and security check information and
the placement of FDNS immigration officers in Asylum Offices can be
valuable, but only if asylum officers have the time to fully utilize
them.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, we
recommend that the Chief of the Asylum Division take the following five
actions:
* explore ways to provide additional opportunities for asylum officers
to observe skilled interviewers;
* develop a framework for soliciting information in a structured and
consistent manner on asylum officers' and supervisors' respective
training needs, including, at a minimum, training needs discussed in
this report;
* ensure that the information collected on training needs is used to
provide training to asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers at
the offices where the information shows it is needed or nationally,
when training needs are common;
* develop a plan to more fully implement the quality review framework-
-and complement existing supervisory and headquarters reviews--to
include, among other things, how to ensure that in each Asylum Office a
sample of decisions of asylum officers are reviewed for quality and
consistency and interviews conducted by asylum officers are observed;
and:
* develop a cost-effective way to collect empirical data on the time it
takes asylum officers to thoroughly complete the steps in the
adjudication process and revise productivity standards, if warranted.
Agency Comments:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS, DOJ, and
State. The departments did not provide official written comments to
include in our report. However, in e-mails received September 12, 2008,
the DHS and USCIS liaisons stated that DHS concurred with our
recommendations. DHS and EOIR provided written technical comments,
which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General,
and the Secretary of State. We will also provide copies to others on
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. For further
information about this report, please contact Richard M. Stana,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-8777 or at
stanar@gao.gov. GAO staff members who were major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Survey of Asylum Officers:
We sent our Web-based survey to all asylum officers who were in their
position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 189 responses from
asylum officers, resulting in a 74 percent response rate. To ensure
survey respondents had recent knowledge about the issues our survey
explored, 18 of the 189 respondents were directed to not complete the
rest of survey because their responses to our initial questions
indicated their primary responsibilities did not include adjudicating
asylum cases or they had adjudicated no, or almost no, asylum cases
over the past year. Although 171 asylum officers completed the survey,
the number answering any particular question may be lower, depending on
how many chose to answer any given question. In addition, for certain
questions, respondents were instructed to skip particular questions
based on their responses to previous questions. Each question includes
the number of asylum officers responding to it.
Our survey was comprised of closed-and open-ended questions. In this
appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of
responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information
on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed
discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV.
Background:
Q1. How long have you been an Asylum Officer? (In years):
Mean: 6;
Median: 5;
Minimum: 0;
Maximum: 16;
Number of respondents: 189.
Q2. How long have you been an Asylum Officer with the office you are
assigned to currently? (In years):
Mean: 6;
Median: 5;
Minimum: 0;
Maximum: 16;
Number of respondents: 189.
Q3. Over the past year, did your primary responsibilities include
interviewing and adjudicating affirmative asylum, credible/reasonable
fear, or NACARA cases?
Yes (percent): 96;
No (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 189.
Q3a. Over the past year, about how many of the cases you adjudicated
were affirmative asylum cases?
All or almost all cases (percent): 36;
Most cases (percent): 25;
About half the cases (percent): 22;
Some cases (percent): 11;
No or almost no cases (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 181.
Training:
Q4. Were you certified in-house before you attended the Asylum Officer
Basic Training Course (AOBTC)?
Yes (percent): 39;
No (percent): 61;
Number of respondents: 167.
Q5. Overall, how well or poorly did AOBTC prepare you to adjudicate
affirmative asylum cases?
Very well (percent): 25;
Moderately well (percent): 50;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 12;
Moderately poorly (percent): 8;
Very poorly (percent): 4;
Not applicable, have not attended AOBTC (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
Q6. Do you think AOBTC needs to be improved in any of the following
areas to better prepare you to make affirmative asylum decisions?
[Where Q5 is "very well", "moderately well", "neither well nor poorly",
"moderately poorly", "very poorly", or "do not know"]
a. Conducting identity and security checks;
Yes (percent): 76;
No (percent): 11;
Don't know (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 166.
b. Identifying possible issues relating to national security;
Yes (percent): 66;
No (percent): 23;
Don't know (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 163.
c. Interviewing skills;
Yes (percent): 39;
No (percent): 56;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 163.
d. Legal requirements for asylum eligibility;
Yes (percent): 23;
No (percent): 72;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 162.
e. Country conditions research;
Yes (percent): 29;
No (percent): 67;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 163.
f. Identifying possible fraud;
Yes (percent): 77;
No (percent): 17;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 167.
g. Decision writing;
Yes (percent): 33;
No (percent): 61;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 162.
h. Asylum process and procedures;
Yes (percent): 37;
No (percent): 57;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 166.
i. Time management;
Yes (percent): 60;
No (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 164.
j. Other;
Yes (percent): 64;
No (percent): 27;
Don't know (percent): 9;
Number of respondents: 78.
Q7. How much, if at all, is additional training on the following topics
needed at your asylum office to improve your ability to adjudicate
affirmative asylum claims?
a. Asylum process and procedures;
Greatly needed (percent): 16;
Moderately needed (percent): 27;
Slightly needed (percent): 31;
Not at all needed (percent): 24;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 165.
b. Conducting identity and security checks (i.e., database queries and
any related research);
Greatly needed (percent): 31;
Moderately needed (percent): 32;
Slightly needed (percent): 25;
Not at all needed (percent): 10;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 169.
c. Interpreting the results of identity and security checks;
Greatly needed (percent): 43;
Moderately needed (percent): 25;
Slightly needed (percent): 21;
Not at all needed (percent): 10;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 169.
d. One-year filing deadline;
Greatly needed (percent): 5;
Moderately needed (percent): 20;
Slightly needed (percent): 23;
Not at all needed (percent): 49;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 166.
e. Mandatory bars to asylum;
Greatly needed (percent): 11;
Moderately needed (percent): 23;
Slightly needed (percent): 35;
Not at all needed (percent): 30;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 167.
f. Issues related to national security;
Greatly needed (percent): 31;
Moderately needed (percent): 26;
Slightly needed (percent): 24;
Not at all needed (percent): 17;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 168.
g. Interviewing skills;
Greatly needed (percent): 18;
Moderately needed (percent): 21;
Slightly needed (percent): 25;
Not at all needed (percent): 33;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 167.
h. Understanding intercultural communication;
Greatly needed (percent): 13;
Moderately needed (percent): 19;
Slightly needed (percent): 22;
Not at all needed (percent): 42;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 166.
i. Understanding how stress and trauma may affect the interview;
Greatly needed (percent): 16;
Moderately needed (percent): 21;
Slightly needed (percent): 23;
Not at all needed (percent): 36;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 165.
j. Assessing credibility;
Greatly needed (percent): 40;
Moderately needed (percent): 24;
Slightly needed (percent): 16;
Not at all needed (percent): 18;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 165.
k. Current trends in fraud;
Greatly needed (percent): 52;
Moderately needed (percent): 27;
Slightly needed (percent): 12;
Not at all needed (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 167.
l. Identifying fraudulent documents;
Greatly needed (percent): 57;
Moderately needed (percent): 26;
Slightly needed (percent): 12;
Not at all needed (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 164.
m. Identifying fraud in claim;
Greatly needed (percent): 53;
Moderately needed (percent): 24;
Slightly needed (percent): 13;
Not at all needed (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 166.
n. Identifying interpreter fraud;
Greatly needed (percent): 43;
Moderately needed (percent): 22;
Slightly needed (percent): 16;
Not at all needed (percent): 17;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 166.
o. Identifying preparer fraud;
Greatly needed (percent): 51;
Moderately needed (percent): 21;
Slightly needed (percent): 16;
Not at all needed (percent): 10;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 167.
p. Identifying attorney fraud;
Greatly needed (percent): 50;
Moderately needed (percent): 17;
Slightly needed (percent): 20;
Not at all needed (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 165.
q. Using the Asylum Virtual Library;
Greatly needed (percent): 21;
Moderately needed (percent): 23;
Slightly needed (percent): 30;
Not at all needed (percent): 25;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 162.
r. Other country condition research methods;
Greatly needed (percent): 14;
Moderately needed (percent): 32;
Slightly needed (percent): 23;
Not at all needed (percent): 28;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 166.
s. Country condition updates;
Greatly needed (percent): 17;
Moderately needed (percent): 29;
Slightly needed (percent): 26;
Not at all needed (percent): 26;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 167.
t. Applying country condition information;
Greatly needed (percent): 15;
Moderately needed (percent): 22;
Slightly needed (percent): 22;
Not at all needed (percent): 40;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 164.
u. U.S. asylum law (e.g., case law, changes in statute and
regulations);
Greatly needed (percent): 18;
Moderately needed (percent): 26;
Slightly needed (percent): 31;
Not at all needed (percent): 24;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 168.
v. Conducting legal research;
Greatly needed (percent): 16;
Moderately needed (percent): 28;
Slightly needed (percent): 25;
Not at all needed (percent): 29;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 167.
w. Applying the REAL ID Act;
Greatly needed (percent): 41;
Moderately needed (percent): 27;
Slightly needed (percent): 20;
Not at all needed (percent): 11;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 167.
x. Writing decisions;
Greatly needed (percent): 11;
Moderately needed (percent): 18;
Slightly needed (percent): 28;
Not at all needed (percent): 40;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 166.
y. Time management;
Greatly needed (percent): 38;
Moderately needed (percent): 19;
Slightly needed (percent): 22;
Not at all needed (percent): 20;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 162.
Q8. Are there topics, other than those listed in the previous question,
that you think should be addressed through training?
Yes (percent): 40;
No (percent): 49;
Don't know (percent): 11;
Number of respondents: 152.
Q9. What other topic(s) should be addressed through training?
Q10. Has your asylum office solicited your views on what training
should be offered locally?
Yes (percent): 32;
No (percent): 63;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 163.
Q11. Approximately when were your views last solicited? [Where Q10 is
"Yes"]
Within the past 6 months (percent): 61;
More than 6 months ago, but within the past year (percent): 14;
More than 1 year ago, but within the past 2 years (percent): 14;
More than 2 years ago, but within the past 5 years (percent): 2;
More than 5 years ago (percent): 0; Don't know (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 51.
Q12. Over the past year, on average, about how many hours per week of
formal training, informal training, and self-study time (e.g.,
conducting research, reading case law, reviewing new training materials
or procedural memos) has your office provided you?
Less than 1 hour (percent): 12;
About 1 hour (percent): 12;
About 2 hours (percent): 34;
About 3 hours (percent): 7;
About 4 hours (percent): 20;
More than 4 hours (percent): 4;
Unable to estimate (percent): 11;
Number of respondents: 169.
Q13. Of the training time provided during the past year, about what
portion, on average, was intended for self-study (e.g., conducting
research, reading case law, reviewing new training materials or
procedural memos)?
All or almost all of that time (percent): 4;
Most of that time (percent): 10;
About half of that time (percent): 11;
Some of that time (percent): 32;
None or almost none of that time (percent): 36;
Unable to estimate (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 167.
Q14. Of that self-study time, about what portion, on average, have you
used to do your routine work (e.g., adjudicating cases, performing
administrative tasks, checking e-mail)?
All or almost all of that time (percent): 41;
Most of that time (percent): 14;
About half of that time (percent): 6;
Some of that time (percent): 10;
None or almost none of that time (percent): 21;
Unable to estimate (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 159.
Q15. What are the primary reasons that you use self-study time to
perform other duties?
Q16. What, if anything, would make training at your asylum office more
effective?
Identity and Security Checks:
Q17. Who generally conducts the identity and security checks on the
affirmative asylum cases that are assigned to you?
I generally do the checks (percent): 61;
Others generally do the checks (percent): 11;
Generally I do some of the checks and other staff do other checks
(percent): 28;
Number of respondents: 170.
Q18. Do you think your ability to conduct and review identity and
security checks would be improved by having additional time or training
in the following areas? [Where Q17 is either "I generally do the
checks" or "Generally I do some of the checks and other staff do other
checks"]
a. Additional time to conduct required checks;
Yes (percent): 87;
No (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 150.
b. Additional time to conduct checks beyond those that are required;
Yes (percent): 78;
No (percent): 15;
Don't know (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 149.
c. Additional training on conducting all required checks;
Yes (percent): 61;
No (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 146.
d. Additional training on conducting checks beyond those that are
required;
Yes (percent): 66;
No (percent): 25;
Don't know (percent): 9;
Number of respondents: 146.
e. Additional training on the type of information contained in the
various databases I search;
Yes (percent): 80;
No (percent): 16;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 148.
f. Additional training on how to interpret the results of checks;
Yes (percent): 83;
No (percent): 15;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 148.
g. Other;
Yes (percent): 63;
No (percent): 31;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 51.
Q19. Please list the checks, if any, for which you would like more time
or training.
Q20. In general, how often are the identity and security checks that
others conduct sufficiently thorough? [Where Q17 is either "Others
generally do the checks" or "Generally I do some of the checks, and
other staff do other checks"]
Always or almost always (percent): 18;
Most of the time (percent): 42;
About half of the time (percent): 18;
Some of the time (percent): 14;
Never or almost never (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 66.
Q21. In general, how easy or difficult is it for you to interpret the
results of the identity and security checks that others conduct? [Where
Q17 is either "Others generally do the checks" or "Generally I do some
of the checks, and other staff do other checks"]
Very easy (percent): 23;
Moderately easy (percent): 35;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26;
Moderately difficult (percent): 15;
Very difficult (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 66.
Q22. In terms of identifying applicants who should or should not
receive asylum, do you think it is more effective for you to conduct
your own security and identity checks, or to have others in the office
conduct the checks before the case is assigned to you?
It is more effective for me to conduct my own security checks
(percent): 44;
It is more effective to have others in the office conduct the checks
before the case is assigned to me (percent): 42;
It makes no difference (percent): 7;
Don't know (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 167.
Q23. When conducting identity and security checks, how well do you
understand:
a. the type of information contained in the various databases or
systems you check?
Greatly understand (percent): 31;
Moderately understand (percent): 58;
Slightly understand (percent): 9;
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
b. the results you receive?
Greatly understand (percent): 30;
Moderately understand (percent): 60;
Slightly understand (percent): 8;
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 164.
Q24. Overall, how useful in accomplishing the following objectives do
you consider the identity and security checks that you or others
conduct at your office?
a. Identify or provide information on individuals who pose a risk to
national security and/or public safety;
Very useful (percent): 47;
Moderately useful (percent): 31;
Slightly useful (percent): 17;
Not at all useful (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 169.
b. Provide information regarding applicants' eligibility for asylum;
Very useful (percent): 40;
Moderately useful (percent): 32;
Slightly useful (percent): 22;
Not at all useful (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 165.
Q25. How useful do you consider each of the following databases or
systems to be in identifying or providing information on individuals
who may pose a risk to national security and/or public safety?
a. FBI fingerprints; Very useful (percent): 68; Moderately useful
(percent): 21; Slightly useful (percent): 8; Not at all useful
(percent): 2; Not applicable (percent): 0; Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
b. FBI name check;
Very useful (percent): 38;
Moderately useful (percent): 19;
Slightly useful (percent): 26;
Not at all useful (percent): 11;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 170.
c. IBIS;
Very useful (percent): 63;
Moderately useful (percent): 25;
Slightly useful (percent): 9;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
d. U.S.-VISIT/SIT;
Very useful (percent): 53;
Moderately useful (percent): 26;
Slightly useful (percent): 12;
Not at all useful (percent): 5;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 171.
e. CIS;
Very useful (percent): 38;
Moderately useful (percent): 21;
Slightly useful (percent): 22;
Not at all useful (percent): 14;
Not applicable (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 169.
f. DACS;
Very useful (percent): 34;
Moderately useful (percent): 26;
Slightly useful (percent): 24;
Not at all useful (percent): 10;
Not applicable (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 169.
g. CCD (Department of State's Consolidated Consular Database);
Very useful (percent): 53;
Moderately useful (percent): 23;
Slightly useful (percent): 15;
Not at all useful (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 171.
h. ChoicePoint;
Very useful (percent): 22;
Moderately useful (percent): 11;
Slightly useful (percent): 7;
Not at all useful (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 15;
Don't know (percent): 42;
Number of respondents: 161.
Q26. How useful do you consider each of the following databases or
systems to be in providing information regarding an applicant's
eligibility for asylum?
a. FBI fingerprints;
Very useful (percent): 55;
Moderately useful (percent): 17;
Slightly useful (percent): 23;
Not at all useful (percent): 5;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
b. FBI name check;
Very useful (percent): 38;
Moderately useful (percent): 15;
Slightly useful (percent): 27;
Not at all useful (percent): 16;
Not applicable (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 170.
c. IBIS;
Very useful (percent): 49;
Moderately useful (percent): 25;
Slightly useful (percent): 18;
Not at all useful (percent): 6;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 170.
d. U.S.-VISIT/SIT;
Very useful (percent): 57;
Moderately useful (percent): 22;
Slightly useful (percent): 15;
Not at all useful (percent): 5;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 169.
e. CIS;
Very useful (percent): 39;
Moderately useful (percent): 24;
Slightly useful (percent): 21;
Not at all useful (percent): 12;
Not applicable (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 168.
f. DACS;
Very useful (percent): 38;
Moderately useful (percent): 28;
Slightly useful (percent): 21;
Not at all useful (percent): 9;
Not applicable (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 170.
g. CCD (Department of State's Consolidated Consular Database);
Very useful (percent): 60;
Moderately useful (percent): 25;
Slightly useful (percent): 9;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 171.
h. ChoicePoint;
Very useful (percent): 21;
Moderately useful (percent): 12;
Slightly useful (percent): 4;
Not at all useful (percent): 6;
Not applicable (percent): 18;
Don't know (percent): 38;
Number of respondents: 154.
Q27. Do you or others need additional data from, or access to,
databases or systems in order to conduct identity and security checks?
Yes (percent): 48;
No (percent): 19;
Don't know (percent): 33;
Number of respondents: 168.
Q28. Please identify the databases or systems to which you think access
is needed.
Q29. How, if at all, do you think identity and security checks can be
improved?
Case Assignment:
Q30. How effective or ineffective do you think your office's current
process is for assigning affirmative asylum cases to officers in:
a. preventing fraud by asylum officers (e.g., precluding officers from
arranging to adjudicate particular cases for money or other
compensation)?
Very effective (percent): 48;
Moderately effective (percent): 15;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 7;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 5;
Very ineffective (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 21;
Number of respondents: 168.
b. ensuring equitable distribution of workload among asylum officers?
Very effective (percent): 18;
Moderately effective (percent): 21;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 9;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 19;
Very ineffective (percent): 25;
Don't know (percent): 9;
Number of respondents: 169.
Q31. What, if anything, do you think could be done to improve the
current process for assigning affirmative asylum cases in your office?
Q32. In how many cases, if any, do you think that asylum officers'
expertise (e.g., language capability or expertise in a particular
geographic area) should be considered when affirmative asylum cases are
assigned to officers?
All or almost all cases (percent): 20;
Most cases (percent): 13;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 24;
No or almost no cases (percent): 31;
Unable to estimate (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 167.
Q33. Please discuss why you think asylum officer expertise should or
should not be considered in assigning cases.
Interviewing and Assessing Credibility:
Q34. Overall, in your affirmative asylum interviews, how often do you
feel you are able to elicit sufficient information to properly evaluate
the claim?
Always or almost always (percent): 25;
Most of the time (percent): 47;
About half of the time (percent): 15;
Some of the time (percent): 8;
Never or almost never (percent): 5;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
Q35. Since being certified to conduct interviews, have you observed, or
had the opportunity to observe, interviews conducted by skilled
interviewers?
I have had the opportunity to observe and have done so (percent): 44;
I have had the opportunity but have not done so (percent): 0;
I have not had the opportunity to do so (percent): 52;
I don't recall (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 162.
Q36. To improve asylum officers' interviewing skills, how useful do you
think it would be for asylum officers to observe interviews conducted
by skilled interviewers?
Very useful (percent): 63;
Moderately useful (percent): 25;
Slightly useful (percent): 11;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 167.
Q37. How useful do you think it would be, or would have been, to
observe skilled interviewers at the following stages in your career as
an asylum officer? [Where Q36 is "very useful", "moderately useful", or
"slightly useful"]
a. During my 1st year as an asylum officer;
Very useful (percent): 89;
Moderately useful (percent): 10;
Slightly useful (percent): 1;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 166.
b. During my 2nd year;
Very useful (percent): 29;
Moderately useful (percent): 42;
Slightly useful (percent): 16;
Not at all useful (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 154.
c. Between my 3rd and 5th year;
Very useful (percent): 20;
Moderately useful (percent): 20;
Slightly useful (percent): 28;
Not at all useful (percent): 22;
Don't know (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 148.
d. After my 5th year;
Very useful (percent): 21;
Moderately useful (percent): 10;
Slightly useful (percent): 29;
Not at all useful (percent): 27;
Don't know (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 143.
e. When returning to affirmative asylum adjudications after other
assignments or rotations;
Very useful (percent): 37;
Moderately useful (percent): 17;
Slightly useful (percent): 25;
Not at all useful (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 155.
Q38. In adjudicating affirmative asylum cases during the past year, in
about how many cases did you find each of the following to be a
significant challenge to assessing credibility?
a. Lack of documents provided by applicant;
All or almost all cases (percent): 17;
Most cases (percent): 19;
About half the cases (percent): 18;
Some cases (percent): 37;
No or almost no cases (percent): 8;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 170.
b. Insufficient time to prepare and conduct research prior to the
interview;
All or almost all cases (percent): 40;
Most cases (percent): 21;
About half the cases (percent): 12;
Some cases (percent): 22;
No or almost no cases (percent): 5;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 168.
c. Insufficient time to probe in interview;
All or almost all cases (percent): 34;
Most cases (percent): 20;
About half the cases (percent): 8;
Some cases (percent): 28;
No or almost no cases (percent): 8;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 169.
d. My own inability to speak applicant's language;
All or almost all cases (percent): 5;
Most cases (percent): 7;
About half the cases (percent): 7;
Some cases (percent): 26;
No or almost no cases (percent): 52;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 171.
e. Lack of information regarding document validity;
All or almost all cases (percent): 32;
Most cases (percent): 18;
About half the cases (percent): 11;
Some cases (percent): 29;
No or almost no cases (percent): 9;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
f. Lack of overseas information on applicant;
All or almost all cases (percent): 32;
Most cases (percent): 16;
About half the cases (percent): 11;
Some cases (percent): 25;
No or almost no cases (percent): 14;
Unable to estimate (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 170.
g. Lack of information on country conditions;
All or almost all cases (percent): 8;
Most cases (percent): 2;
About half the cases (percent): 5;
Some cases (percent): 47;
No or almost no cases (percent): 38;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 170.
h. Other;
All or almost all cases (percent): 52;
Most cases (percent): 7;
About half the cases (percent): 9;
Some cases (percent): 14;
No or almost no cases (percent): 5;
Unable to estimate (percent): 14;
Number of respondents: 44.
Q39. How well do you understand how to apply each of the following
provisions of the REAL ID Act as they pertain to adjudicating
affirmative asylum cases?
a. Determining whether the applicant has established that one of the
five protected grounds was or will be at least one central reason for
the persecution;
Greatly understand (percent): 62;
Moderately understand (percent): 28;
Slightly understand (percent): 5;
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 169.
b. Determining whether the applicant should provide evidence that
corroborates otherwise credible testimony;
Greatly understand (percent): 39;
Moderately understand (percent): 41;
Slightly understand (percent): 14;
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 168.
c. Factoring a relevant inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood into a
credibility determination, even if the inconsistency, inaccuracy, or
falsehood does not go to the heart of the applicant's claim;
Greatly understand (percent): 45;
Moderately understand (percent): 34;
Slightly understand (percent): 13;
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 9;
Number of respondents: 168.
Q40. Do you face any barriers in applying the provisions of the REAL ID
Act in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases?
Yes (percent): 37;
No (percent): 41;
Don't know (percent): 22;
Number of respondents: 162.
Q40a. What barriers do you face? Please include in your response the
specific provision(s) involved.
Q41. How much, if at all, would the following possible changes help you
elicit better information during the asylum applicant interview to
properly evaluate the claim, including assessing the applicant's
eligibility and credibility?
a. Receiving more training on interview preparation;
Greatly help (percent): 13;
Moderately help (percent): 21;
Slightly help (percent): 33;
Not at all help (percent): 31;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 167.
b. Receiving more training on how to conduct the interview;
Greatly help (percent): 12;
Moderately help (percent): 19;
Slightly help (percent): 34;
Not at all help (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 167.
c. Receiving more training on eliciting information in the interview to
test credibility;
Greatly help (percent): 32;
Moderately help (percent): 23;
Slightly help (percent): 24;
Not at all help (percent): 20;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 168.
d. Receiving more training on how to evaluate credibility;
Greatly help (percent): 30;
Moderately help (percent): 19;
Slightly help (percent): 26;
Not at all help (percent): 23;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 167.
e. Having more time during the interview;
Greatly help (percent): 75;
Moderately help (percent): 17;
Slightly help (percent): 4;
Not at all help (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 168.
f. Having more time to prepare and conduct research prior to the
interview;
Greatly help (percent): 76;
Moderately help (percent): 16;
Slightly help (percent): 6;
Not at all help (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 169.
g. Receiving the A-file further in advance;
Greatly help (percent): 52;
Moderately help (percent): 23;
Slightly help (percent): 13;
Not at all help (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 168.
h. Having greater discretion to conduct additional interviews when
appropriate;
Greatly help (percent): 44;
Moderately help (percent): 20;
Slightly help (percent): 21;
Not at all help (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 164.
i. Routinely conducting two interviews with the applicant on different
dates to allow time for interim research;
Greatly help (percent): 35;
Moderately help (percent): 17;
Slightly help (percent): 20;
Not at all help (percent): 22;
Don't know (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 168.
j. Co-conducting the interview with another officer;
Greatly help (percent): 24;
Moderately help (percent): 16;
Slightly help (percent): 14;
Not at all help (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 11;
Number of respondents: 166.
k. Having additional opportunities to collaborate with other officers
on cases;
Greatly help (percent): 44;
Moderately help (percent): 23;
Slightly help (percent): 18;
Not at all help (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 167.
l. Other;
Greatly help (percent): 64;
Moderately help (percent): 6;
Slightly help (percent): 6;
Not at all help (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 12;
Number of respondents: 50.
Use of Contracted Interpreter Monitors:
Q42. Have you had experience with using contracted interpreter monitors
during your affirmative asylum interviews?
Yes (percent): 98;
No (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 169.
Q43. In general, how useful do you think the interpreter monitors are
in: [Where Q42 is "Yes"]
a. deterring interpreters from intentionally misinterpreting?;
Very useful (percent): 60;
Moderately useful (percent): 27;
Slightly useful (percent): 8;
Not at all useful (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 168.
b. helping genuine refugees clearly communicate their claim and avoid
misunderstandings due to poor interpretation?;
Very useful (percent): 48;
Moderately useful (percent): 34;
Slightly useful (percent): 13;
Not at all useful (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 166.
c. helping you identify fraud?;
Very useful (percent): 27;
Moderately useful (percent): 22;
Slightly useful (percent): 28;
Not at all useful (percent): 19;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 166.
d. helping you expedite the interview?;
Very useful (percent): 18;
Moderately useful (percent): 17;
Slightly useful (percent): 17;
Not at all useful (percent): 44;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 168.
Q44. Compared to the current practice of using interpreter monitors
along with applicants' interpreters, how much do you think having only
contracted telephonic interpreters would improve or worsen:
a. genuine refugees' ability to clearly communicate their claim?;
Greatly improve (percent): 42;
Moderately improve (percent): 25;
Neither improve nor worsen (percent): 15;
Moderately worsen (percent): 9;
Greatly worsen (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 169.
b. your ability to identify fraud?;
Greatly improve (percent): 40;
Moderately improve (percent): 20;
Neither improve nor worsen (percent): 26;
Moderately worsen (percent): 3;
Greatly worsen (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 169.
c. your ability to expedite the interview?;
Greatly improve (percent): 34;
Moderately improve (percent): 25;
Neither improve nor worsen (percent): 15;
Moderately worsen (percent): 10;
Greatly worsen (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 169.
Assessing Fraud:
Q45. Overall, how easy or difficult is it for you to identify each of
the following types of fraud in affirmative asylum cases?
a. Identity fraud;
Very easy (percent): 4;
Moderately easy (percent): 24;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 19;
Moderately difficult (percent): 31;
Very difficult (percent): 19;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 170.
b. Document fraud;
Very easy (percent): 2;
Moderately easy (percent): 12;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 12;
Moderately difficult (percent): 36;
Very difficult (percent): 36;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
c. Interpreter fraud (when interpreter monitors are used);
Very easy (percent): 18;
Moderately easy (percent): 37;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 16;
Moderately difficult (percent): 19;
Very difficult (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 170.
d. Preparer fraud;
Very easy (percent): 9;
Moderately easy (percent): 26;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 19;
Moderately difficult (percent): 31;
Very difficult (percent): 14;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 169.
e. Attorney fraud;
Very easy (percent): 5;
Moderately easy (percent): 17;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 21;
Moderately difficult (percent): 29;
Very difficult (percent): 24;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 169.
f. Fraud in claim;
Very easy (percent): 8;
Moderately easy (percent): 26;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26;
Moderately difficult (percent): 26;
Very difficult (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 171.
g. Fraud related to date or method of entry;
Very easy (percent): 9;
Moderately easy (percent): 29;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 16;
Moderately difficult (percent): 30;
Very difficult (percent): 15;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 171.
h. Jurisdictional fraud (forum shopping);
Very easy (percent): 8;
Moderately easy (percent): 24;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 26;
Very difficult (percent): 18;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 170.
i. Other; Very easy (percent): 19;
Moderately easy (percent): 9;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 6;
Moderately difficult (percent): 6;
Very difficult (percent): 28;
Don't know (percent): 31;
Number of respondents: 32.
Q46. Over the past year, did you ever grant asylum for any of the
following reasons, despite thinking the applicant tried to represent
fraudulent documents as genuine?
a. I found the applicant's claim to be credible;
Yes (percent): 53;
No (percent): 42;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 165.
b. I found no legal basis to refer or deny;
Yes (percent): 51;
No (percent): 44;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 162.
c. My supervisor found that my reasons to refer or deny were not
supported by the law or my analysis;
Yes (percent): 32;
No (percent): 62;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 161.
d. The process involved in granting asylum was easier than referring or
denying;
Yes (percent): 19;
No (percent): 80;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 161.
e. I didn't have sufficient time to gather the evidence needed to refer
or deny the claim;
Yes (percent): 36;
No (percent): 61;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 166.
f. The fraudulent document(s) were not material or relevant to the
claim;
Yes (percent): 48;
No (percent): 44;
Don't know (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 160.
g. There was no way to verify whether the document(s) were truly
fraudulent;
Yes (percent): 59;
No (percent): 37;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 165.
h. My supervisor did not want me to send the document(s) to the
Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL) for verification;
Yes (percent): 19;
No (percent): 79;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 157.
i. Other;
Yes (percent): 54;
No (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 11;
Number of respondents: 35.
Q47. Over the past year, in about how many cases in which you granted
asylum did you do so despite thinking you were presented with
fraudulent documents? [Where Q46 is "Yes" on one or more item]
All or almost all of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 3;
Most of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 5;
About half of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 7;
Some of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 49;
None or almost none of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent):
28;
Unable to estimate (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 133.
Q48. Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think the FDNS-IO
(Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer) position is
in identifying or verifying fraud?
Very effective (percent): 17;
Moderately effective (percent): 32;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 14;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 8;
Very ineffective (percent): 10;
Don't know (percent): 20;
Number of respondents: 171.
Q49. What, if anything, would make the FDNS-IO position more effective?
Q50. To what extent are you encouraged to or discouraged from formally
referring cases to your FDNS-IO (i.e., completing a fraud referral
sheet) when you suspect fraud?
Very encouraged (percent): 30;
Moderately encouraged (percent): 20;
Neither encouraged nor discouraged (percent): 21;
Moderately discouraged (percent): 14;
Very discouraged (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 168.
Q51. What, if anything, prevents or limits you from referring cases to
your FDNS-IO?
Q52. Is there also a Fraud Prevention Coordinator in your office?
Yes (percent): 85;
No (percent): 7;
Don't know (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 168.
Q53. Overall, how effective or ineffective is the Fraud Prevention
Coordinator position in identifying fraud? [Where Q52 is "Yes"]
Very effective (percent): 17;
Moderately effective (percent): 30;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 13;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 9;
Very ineffective (percent): 11;
Don't know (percent): 20;
Number of respondents: 143.
Q54. What, if anything, would make the Fraud Prevention Coordinator
position more effective?
Q55. When you have suspected or identified fraud during the past year,
in how many of these cases do you think the asylum seeker was knowingly
involved in the fraud?
All or almost all of these cases (percent): 45;
Most of these cases (percent): 27;
About half of these cases (percent): 5;
Some of these cases (percent): 16;
None or almost none of these cases (percent): 0;
Unable to estimate (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 166.
Q56. How much, if at all, do you think each of the following possible
changes are needed to help you identify fraud in the affirmative asylum
cases you adjudicate?
a. Additional FDNS-IO(s) in your office;
Greatly needed (percent): 37;
Moderately needed (percent): 19;
Slightly needed (percent): 8;
Not at all needed (percent): 24;
Don't know (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 167.
b. Additional Fraud Prevention Coordinator(s) in your office;
Greatly needed (percent): 24;
Moderately needed (percent): 25;
Slightly needed (percent): 8;
Not at all needed (percent): 27;
Don't know (percent): 16;
Number of respondents: 166.
c. Additional Forensic Document Laboratory (FDL)-trained staff in your
office;
Greatly needed (percent): 68;
Moderately needed (percent): 17;
Slightly needed (percent): 5;
Not at all needed (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 168.
d. Having two or more asylum officers participate in interviews;
Greatly needed (percent): 25;
Moderately needed (percent): 9;
Slightly needed (percent): 13;
Not at all needed (percent): 40;
Don't know (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 165.
e. Scanning all I-589s and using software to identify boilerplates and
trends;
Greatly needed (percent): 61;
Moderately needed (percent): 16;
Slightly needed (percent): 11;
Not at all needed (percent): 7;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 165.
Q57. What else do you think can be done to help you better identify
whether or not fraud exists in the cases you adjudicate?
Q58. What else do you think can be done to deter or cut down on fraud
in affirmative asylum cases?
Country Conditions:
Q59. How useful to your country condition research is each of the
following sources of information?
a. Information submitted by the applicant;
Very useful (percent): 14;
Moderately useful (percent): 22;
Slightly useful (percent): 45;
Not at all useful (percent): 19;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 168.
b. Your own research done on prior case(s);
Very useful (percent): 75;
Moderately useful (percent): 20;
Slightly useful (percent): 4;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 167.
c. Information available through the Resource Information Center (RIC),
including Asylum Virtual Library;
Very useful (percent): 34;
Moderately useful (percent): 32;
Slightly useful (percent): 28;
Not at all useful (percent): 3;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 169.
d. Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices and International Religious Freedom reports;
Very useful (percent): 58;
Moderately useful (percent): 34;
Slightly useful (percent): 8;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 170.
e. Department of State's Profiles of Asylum Claims and Country
Conditions;
Very useful (percent): 42;
Moderately useful (percent): 28;
Slightly useful (percent): 13;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 15;
Number of respondents: 166.
f. Department of State's fraud summary reports;
Very useful (percent): 25;
Moderately useful (percent): 26;
Slightly useful (percent): 20;
Not at all useful (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 24;
Number of respondents: 167.
g. Other;
Very useful (percent): 74;
Moderately useful (percent): 9;
Slightly useful (percent): 9;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 9;
Number of respondents: 46.
Q60. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you that you have
sufficient tools for doing country condition research?
Very satisfied (percent): 29;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 50;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 10;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 8;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 171.
Q61. What, if anything, do you think can be done to help you better
conduct country condition research?
Q62. How useful do you think each of the following types of case-
specific information would be in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases?
a. Entire visa application in addition to what is available in CCD;
Very useful (percent): 74;
Moderately useful (percent): 17;
Slightly useful (percent): 4;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 171.
b. Department of State advisory opinion;
Very useful (percent): 42;
Moderately useful (percent): 21;
Slightly useful (percent): 15;
Not at all useful (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 9;
Number of respondents: 168.
c. Overseas employment records or verification;
Very useful (percent): 70;
Moderately useful (percent): 15;
Slightly useful (percent): 10;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 171.
d. Overseas medical records or verification;
Very useful (percent): 69;
Moderately useful (percent): 18;
Slightly useful (percent): 8;
Not at all useful (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 170.
e. Other;
Very useful (percent): 72;
Moderately useful (percent): 4;
Slightly useful (percent): 0;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 21;
Number of respondents: 47.
Q63. Think about the affirmative asylum cases that you adjudicated in
the past year. In how many of these cases did you need, but did not
have, the following case-specific information?
a. Entire visa application in addition to what is available in CCD;
All or almost all cases (percent): 30;
Most cases (percent): 16;
About half the cases (percent): 9;
Some cases (percent): 26;
No or almost no cases (percent): 13;
Unable to estimate (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 168.
b. Department of State advisory opinion;
All or almost all cases (percent): 22;
Most cases (percent): 6;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 19;
No or almost no cases (percent): 32;
Unable to estimate (percent): 15;
Number of respondents: 162.
c. Employment records or verification;
All or almost all cases (percent): 29;
Most cases (percent): 13;
About half the cases (percent): 8;
Some cases (percent): 24;
No or almost no cases (percent): 23;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 168.
d. Medical records or verification;
All or almost all cases (percent): 31;
Most cases (percent): 14;
About half the cases (percent): 8;
Some cases (percent): 24;
No or almost no cases (percent): 19;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 169.
e. Other;
All or almost all cases (percent): 43;
Most cases (percent): 11;
About half the cases (percent): 3;
Some cases (percent): 3;
No or almost no cases (percent): 14;
Unable to estimate (percent): 26;
Number of respondents: 35.
Q64. How well do you understand the process(es) used in your office for
requesting overseas verification (e.g., employment or medical records
or verification)?
Greatly understand (percent): 11;
Moderately understand (percent): 15;
Slightly understand (percent): 14;
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 60;
Number of respondents: 164.
Q65. How, if at all, do you think the process(es) could be improved for
requesting and obtaining overseas verification?
Workload:
Q66. How easy or difficult is it for you to manage your workload?
Very easy (percent): 8;
Moderately easy (percent): 6;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15;
Moderately difficult (percent): 35;
Very difficult (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 170.
Q67. Please briefly explain why it is difficult for you to manage your
workload.
Q68. What can be done to help you and other asylum officers better
manage the workload?
Q69. How much time do you think you need, on average, to complete an
affirmative asylum case in a manner consistent with the procedures
manual and training? (Number of respondents is 189.)
3 hours or less; Percent: 10.
About 4 hours; Percent: 15.
About 5 hours; Percent: 21.
About 6 hours; Percent: 22.
About 7 hours; Percent: 4.
About 8 hours; Percent: 8.
More than 8 hours; Percent: 3.
Unable to estimate; Percent: 7.
Q70. If you feel you currently have insufficient time, how do you
manage to complete your assigned cases?
Q71. Over the past year, in about how many cases, if any, did
productivity or timeliness standards hinder your ability to properly
adjudicate affirmative asylum cases in accordance with standard
procedures and the law?
a. Productivity standards;
All or almost all cases (percent): 20;
Most cases (percent): 12;
About half the cases (percent): 11;
Some cases (percent): 29;
No or almost no cases (percent): 23;
Unable to estimate (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 160.
b. Timeliness standards;
All or almost all cases (percent): 21;
Most cases (percent): 13;
About half the cases (percent): 13;
Some cases (percent): 31;
No or almost no cases (percent): 17;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 163.
Decision Making:
Q72. Overall, when you think about the out-of-status affirmative asylum
cases you adjudicated during the past year, would you say that it has
been easier for you to grant asylum or to refer a case to an
immigration judge?
Much easier to grant asylum (percent): 13;
Generally easier to grant asylum (percent): 14;
No easier to grant than to refer (percent): 54;
Generally easier to refer (percent): 10;
Much easier to refer (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 164.
Q73. If you found that it was easier to decide a case in a particular
way for out-of-status applicants, please explain why.
Q74. Overall, when you think about the in-status affirmative asylum
cases you adjudicated during the past year, would you say that it has
been easier for you to grant asylum or to issue a notice of intent to
deny (NOID)?
Much easier to grant asylum (percent): 25;
Generally easier to grant asylum (percent): 16;
No easier to grant than to issue a NOID (percent): 50;
Generally easier to issue a NOID (percent): 4;
Much easier to issue a NOID (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 161.
Q75. If you found that it was easier to decide a case in a particular
way for in-status applicants, please explain why.
Q76. Are there any factors, other than the merits of the asylum case,
that influence your decisions?
Yes (percent): 38;
No (percent): 58;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 162.
Q77. Please explain what these factors are and the circumstances in
which they arise.
Q78. Think about the affirmative asylum cases in which you granted
asylum during the past year. In about how many of these cases did you
grant asylum to an applicant who met the legal standard, even though
you did not believe the applicant's claim?
All of almost all of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 7;
Most of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 9;
About half of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 11;
Some of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent): 45;
None or almost none of the cases in which I granted asylum (percent):
24;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 170.
Q79. In such cases, why did you grant asylum? Q80. In general, how
effective or ineffective is having supervisory asylum officers review
100 percent of affirmative asylum decisions in accomplishing each of
the following objectives?
a. Improving the quality of decisions;
Very effective (percent): 22;
Moderately effective (percent): 31;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 21;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 11;
Very ineffective (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 170.
b. Promoting consistency in decisionmaking;
Very effective (percent): 18;
Moderately effective (percent): 19;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 21;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 11;
Very ineffective (percent): 27;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 170.
c. Ensuring compliance with procedures;
Very effective (percent): 33;
Moderately effective (percent): 40;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 9;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 6;
Very ineffective (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 169.
Q81. Thinking about your current supervisor, how often would you say
that supervisory review of your affirmative asylum cases:
a. resulted in your decision being returned to you for substantive
correction?;
Always or almost always (percent): 5;
Most of the time (percent): 1;
About half of the time (percent): 4;
Some of the time (percent): 34;
Never or almost never (percent): 55;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 167.
b. changed the outcome of your decision from a grant to a referral or
denial?;
Always or almost always (percent): 4;
Most of the time (percent): 1;
About half of the time (percent): 2;
Some of the time (percent): 25;
Never or almost never (percent): 67;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 169.
c. changed the outcome of your decision from a denial or referral to a
grant?;
Always or almost always (percent): 2;
Most of the time (percent): 2;
About half of the time (percent): 0;
Some of the time (percent): 26;
Never or almost never (percent): 68;
Unable to estimate (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 169.
Q82. How often has the decision you reached in an affirmative asylum
case been influenced by your perception of how your current supervisor
would like you to decide the case?
Always or almost always (percent): 9;
Most of the time (percent): 10;
About half of the time (percent): 8;
Some of the time (percent): 28;
Never or almost never (percent): 44;
Unable to estimate (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 170.
Q83. In cases, if any, where your decision was influenced by your
perception of what your supervisor wanted, in which of the following
ways did you tend to make the decision?
Granted asylum rather than referred or issued a NOID (percent): 25;
Referred or issued a NOID rather than granted asylum (percent): 21;
No more likely to decide one way or the other (percent): 28;
Not applicable (percent): 24; Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 163.
[End of table]
Closing:
Q84. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for
improving the quality of the asylum process or adjudications within
USCIS.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Survey of Supervisory Asylum Officers:
We sent our Web-based survey to all supervisory asylum officers who
were in their position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 43
responses from supervisory asylum officers, resulting in a 77 percent
response rate. To ensure survey respondents had recent knowledge about
the issues our survey explored, 3 of the 43 respondents were directed
to not complete the rest of survey because their responses to initial
questions indicated that, over the past year, they were not a first-
line supervisor responsible for reviewing asylum officer decisions or
had reviewed no, or almost no, asylum decisions. Although 40
supervisory asylum officers completed the survey, the number answering
any particular question may be lower, depending on how many chose to
answer any given question. In addition, for certain questions,
respondents were instructed to skip particular questions based on their
responses to previous questions. Each question includes the number of
supervisory asylum officers responding to it.
Our survey was comprised of closed-and open-ended questions. In this
appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of
responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information
on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed
discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV.
Background:
Q1. How long have you been a supervisory asylum officer? (In years):
Mean: 6;
Median: 5;
Minimum: 0;
Maximum: 16;
Number of respondents: 43.
Q2. How long have you been a supervisory asylum officer with the office
you are assigned to currently? (In years):
Mean: 6;
Median: 5;
Minimum: 0;
Maximum: 16;
Number of respondents: 42.
Q3. Currently, how many asylum officers do you directly supervise?
Mean: 5;
Median: 5;
Minimum: 0;
Maximum: 9;
Number of respondents: 43.
Q4. Over the past year, did your responsibilities include being a first-
line supervisor responsible for reviewing asylum officer decisions?
Yes (percent): 98;
No (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 43.
Q5. Over the past year, about how many of the decisions you reviewed
were affirmative asylum decisions?
All or almost all decisions (percent): 33;
Most decisions (percent): 38;
About half the decisions (percent): 21;
Some decisions (percent): 2;
No or almost no decisions (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 42.
Supervisory Asylum Officer Responsibilities:
Q6. How easy or difficult is it for you to carry out each of the
following responsibilities in the time available?
a. Supervise subordinates; Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 13;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 50;
Very difficult (percent): 18;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
b. Evaluate the overall performance of asylum officers you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 15;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 8;
Moderately difficult (percent): 48;
Very difficult (percent): 30;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
c. Assess asylum officers' productivity and timely case completion;
Very easy (percent): 5;
Moderately easy (percent): 18;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18;
Moderately difficult (percent): 26;
Very difficult (percent): 33;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
d. Observe and provide feedback on an average of one interview per
month for each asylum officer you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 13;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 10;
Moderately difficult (percent): 35;
Very difficult (percent): 43;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
e. Evaluate 24 written decisions per year for each of the asylum
officers you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 8;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 48;
Very difficult (percent): 23;
Not applicable (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 40.
f. Review 100 percent of written decisions of the asylum officers you
supervise;
Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 13;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15;
Moderately difficult (percent): 40;
Very difficult (percent): 33;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
g. Assess the legal analysis of the written decisions you review;
Very easy (percent): 5;
Moderately easy (percent): 28;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18;
Moderately difficult (percent): 43;
Very difficult (percent): 8;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
h. Identify emerging trends in fraud;
Very easy (percent): 3;
Moderately easy (percent): 18;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26;
Moderately difficult (percent): 23;
Very difficult (percent): 31;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
i. Assess training needs of asylum officers you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 10;
Moderately easy (percent): 23;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 31;
Moderately difficult (percent): 23;
Very difficult (percent): 13;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
j. Stay current with asylum regulations, case law, and procedures;
Very easy (percent): 3;
Moderately easy (percent): 20;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18;
Moderately difficult (percent): 30;
Very difficult (percent): 30;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
k. Stay current with country conditions;
Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 18;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 25;
Moderately difficult (percent): 40;
Very difficult (percent): 18;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
l. Perform collateral duties, as assigned to you;
Very easy (percent): 3;
Moderately easy (percent): 5;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 13;
Moderately difficult (percent): 35;
Very difficult (percent): 45;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
m. Manage your own workload;
Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 5;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 25;
Moderately difficult (percent): 35;
Very difficult (percent): 35;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q7. How inherently easy or difficult do you consider each of the
following responsibilities without regard for the time available to
carry them out?
a. Supervise subordinates;
Very easy (percent): 10;
Moderately easy (percent): 33;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 23;
Moderately difficult (percent): 20;
Very difficult (percent): 15;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
b. Evaluate the overall performance of asylum officers you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 13;
Moderately easy (percent): 38;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 23;
Very difficult (percent): 8;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
c. Assess asylum officers' productivity and timely case completion;
Very easy (percent): 18;
Moderately easy (percent): 38;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 18;
Very difficult (percent): 8;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
d. Observe and provide feedback on an average of one interview per
month for each asylum officer you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 20;
Moderately easy (percent): 38;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 18;
Very difficult (percent): 5;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
e. Evaluate 24 written decisions per year for each of the asylum
officers you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 20;
Moderately easy (percent): 40;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 13;
Very difficult (percent): 8;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
f. Review 100 percent of written decisions of the asylum officers you
supervise;
Very easy (percent): 23;
Moderately easy (percent): 30;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 20;
Moderately difficult (percent): 18;
Very difficult (percent): 10;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
g. Assess the legal analysis of the written decisions you review;
Very easy (percent): 28;
Moderately easy (percent): 30;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18;
Moderately difficult (percent): 23;
Very difficult (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
h. Identify emerging trends in fraud;
Very easy (percent): 10;
Moderately easy (percent): 33;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 21;
Moderately difficult (percent): 23;
Very difficult (percent): 13;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
i. Assess training needs of asylum officers you supervise;
Very easy (percent): 26;
Moderately easy (percent): 31;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 26;
Moderately difficult (percent): 15;
Very difficult (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
j. Stay current with asylum regulations, case law, and procedures;
Very easy (percent): 10;
Moderately easy (percent): 35;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18;
Moderately difficult (percent): 25;
Very difficult (percent): 13;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
k. Stay current with country conditions;
Very easy (percent): 18;
Moderately easy (percent): 35;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 23;
Moderately difficult (percent): 18;
Very difficult (percent): 8;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
l. Perform collateral duties, as assigned to you;
Very easy (percent): 10;
Moderately easy (percent): 30;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 28;
Moderately difficult (percent): 18;
Very difficult (percent): 15;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
m. Manage your own workload;
Very easy (percent): 10;
Moderately easy (percent): 38;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 28;
Moderately difficult (percent): 10;
Very difficult (percent): 15;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q7n. For any of the responsibilities you rated as moderately difficult
or very difficult in Questions 7a to 7m above, why do you consider them
difficult?
Q7o. What other aspects of your job as a supervisor, if any, do you
consider to be difficult and why?
Q8. Over the past year, on average, about how many hours per week did
you spend carrying out collateral duties (e.g., Fraud Prevention
Coordinator, Collateral Duty Safety Officer)?
(Number of respondents is 43.)
Less than 4 hours; Percent: 2.
4 or more hours but less than 8 hours; Percent: 21.
8 or more hours but less than 12 hours; Percent: 19.
12 or more hours but less than 16 hours; Percent: 14.
16 or more hours but less than 20 hours; Percent: 12.
20 or more hours; Percent: 26.
Don't know; Percent: 0.
Q9. Think about the affirmative asylum decisions you reviewed over the
past year. About how many of these decisions did you:
a. return for correction using the Written Decision Evaluation Form?;
All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3;
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3;
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 13;
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 66;
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 8;
Unable to estimate (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 38.
b. return for correction using the Administrative Tasks Evaluation
Form?; All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 5;
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3;
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 18;
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 55;
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 13;
Unable to estimate (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 38.
c. return without using an evaluation form?;
All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 5;
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 3;
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 8;
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 55;
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 24;
Unable to estimate (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 38.
Q10. Of the affirmative asylum decisions you returned to asylum
officers for correction during the past year using the Written Decision
Evaluation Form, about how many did you return due to deficiencies in
the following areas?
a. Writing style (encompasses the following standards: required
elements, clear and concise, and accurate and objective);
All or almost all of the decisions I returned (percent): 0;
Most of the decisions I returned (percent): 3;
About half of the decisions I returned (percent): 16;
Some of the decisions I returned (percent): 47;
None or almost none of the decisions I returned (percent): 34;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 38.
b. Legal analysis (encompasses the following standards: credibility,
harm, nexus, bars, and the one-year filing deadline);
All or almost all of the decisions I returned (percent): 24;
Most of the decisions I returned (percent): 18;
About half of the decisions I returned (percent): 21;
Some of the decisions I returned (percent): 34;
None or almost none of the decisions I returned (percent): 3;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 38.
Q11. Of the affirmative asylum decisions you returned for correction
during the past year using the Written Decision Evaluation Form, in
about how many did your review result in asylum officers changing the
outcome of the case?
All or almost all of the decisions I returned (percent): 5;
Most of the decisions I returned (percent): 15;
About half of the decisions I returned (percent): 3;
Some of the decisions I returned (percent): 51;
None or almost none of the decisions I returned (percent): 21;
Unable to estimate (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 39.
Q12. In general, how effective or ineffective is having supervisory
asylum officers review 100 percent of affirmative asylum decisions in
accomplishing each of the following objectives?
a. Improving the quality of decisions;
Very effective (percent): 43; Moderately effective (percent): 40;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 10;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 5;
Very ineffective (percent): 3;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
b. Promoting consistency in decision making;
Very effective (percent): 30;
Moderately effective (percent): 43;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 8;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 10;
Very ineffective (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 40.
c. Ensuring compliance with procedures;
Very effective (percent): 53;
Moderately effective (percent): 38;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 10;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 0;
Very ineffective (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Assignment of Cases to Asylum Officers:
Q13. How effective or ineffective do you think your office's current
process is for assigning affirmative asylum cases to officers in:
a. preventing fraud by asylum officers (e.g., precluding officers from
arranging to adjudicate particular cases for money or other
compensation)?;
Very effective (percent): 68;
Moderately effective (percent): 15;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 5;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 3;
Very ineffective (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 40.
b. ensuring equitable distribution of workload among asylum officers?;
Very effective (percent): 38;
Moderately effective (percent): 36;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 10;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 10;
Very ineffective (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
Q14. What, if anything, do you think could be done to improve the
current process for assigning affirmative asylum cases in your office?
Q15. In about how many affirmative asylum cases, if any, do you think
that asylum officers' expertise (e.g., language capability or expertise
in a particular geographic area) should be considered when affirmative
asylum cases are assigned to officers?
All or almost all cases (percent): 3;
Most cases (percent): 18;
About half the cases (percent): 5;
Some cases (percent): 38;
No or almost no cases (percent): 33;
Unable to estimate (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 40.
Asylum Officer Responsibilities:
Q16. What challenges, if any, have the greatest impact on asylum
officers' ability to adjudicate affirmative asylum cases in a manner
consistent with the procedures manual and training?
Please identify up to 3 challenges--one challenge per response box--and
answer the following questions for each:
(a) How would you describe the challenge?
(b) What are the impacts of this challenge? and;
(c) What, if anything, would you suggest that the Asylum Division or
USCIS do to help asylum officers overcome this challenge?
Q17. In about how many cases, if any, do you think that challenges the
asylum officers you supervise face hinder their ability to adjudicate
affirmative asylum cases in a manner consistent with the procedures
manual and training?
All or almost all cases (percent): 16;
Most cases (percent): 26;
About half the cases (percent): 21;
Some cases (percent): 34;
No or almost no cases (percent): 3;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 38.
Q18. In general, how well or poorly do you think the asylum officers
you supervise consider each of the following aspects of the one-year
rule in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases?
a. Determining whether clear and convincing evidence exists that the
application was filed within one year of entering the country;
Very well (percent): 28;
Moderately well (percent): 53;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 13;
Moderately poorly (percent): 8;
Very poorly (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
b. Determining whether evidence exists for an exception to the one-year
rule;
Very well (percent): 20;
Moderately well (percent): 58;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 13;
Moderately poorly (percent): 10;
Very poorly (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
c. Identifying and analyzing country condition information in applying
the exceptions of the one-year rule;
Very well (percent): 28;
Moderately well (percent): 43;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 20;
Moderately poorly (percent): 10;
Very poorly (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
d. Determining whether the delay in filing was reasonable in light of
the circumstances;
Very well (percent): 20;
Moderately well (percent): 60;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 13;
Moderately poorly (percent): 8;
Very poorly (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q19. In general, how well or poorly do you think asylum officers you
supervise apply each of the following provisions of the REAL ID Act in
adjudicating affirmative asylum cases?
a. Determining whether the applicant has established that one of the
five protected grounds was or will be at least one central reason for
the persecution;
Very well (percent): 25;
Moderately well (percent): 45;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 20;
Moderately poorly (percent): 8;
Very poorly (percent): 3;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
b. Determining whether the applicant should provide evidence that
corroborates otherwise credible testimony;
Very well (percent): 5;
Moderately well (percent): 50;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 23;
Moderately poorly (percent): 13;
Very poorly (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 40.
c. Factoring a relevant inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood into a
credibility determination, even if the inconsistency, inaccuracy, or
falsehood does not go to the heart of the applicant's claim;
Very well (percent): 3;
Moderately well (percent): 50;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 25;
Moderately poorly (percent): 18;
Very poorly (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Asylum Officer Workload:
Q20. How much time, on average, do you think asylum officers need to
complete an affirmative asylum case in a manner consistent with the
procedures manual and training?
(Number of respondents is 43.)
3 hours or less; Percent: 9.
About 4 hours; Percent: 16.
About 5 hours; Percent: 33.
About 6 hours; Percent: 21.
About 7 hours; Percent: 7.
About 8 hours; Percent: 7.
More than 8 hours; Percent: 0.
Unable to estimate; Percent: 0.
[End of table]
Q21. How easy or difficult do you think it is for the asylum officers
you supervise to manage their workload?
Very easy (percent): 0;
Moderately easy (percent): 0;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 5;
Moderately difficult (percent): 55;
Very difficult (percent): 40;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q22. What, if anything, can be done to help asylum officers better
manage their workload?
Fraud:
Q23. Overall, how effective or ineffective do you think the FDNS-IO
(Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer) position is
in identifying or verifying fraud in affirmative asylum cases?
Very effective (percent): 15;
Moderately effective (percent): 35;
Neither effective nor ineffective (percent): 13;
Moderately ineffective (percent): 8;
Very ineffective (percent): 18;
Don't know (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q24. What, if anything, would make the FDNS-IO position more effective?
Q25. On average, how well or poorly do the asylum officers you
supervise identify whether or not fraud exists in the affirmative
asylum cases they adjudicate?
Very well (percent): 10;
Moderately well (percent): 31;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 38;
Moderately poorly (percent): 15;
Very poorly (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
Q26. In about how many of the affirmative asylum decisions you reviewed
during the past year did asylum officers not complete a fraud referral
sheet when you thought they should have?
All or almost all of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 0;
Most of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 10;
About half of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 10;
Some of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 44;
None or almost none of the decisions I reviewed (percent): 28;
Unable to estimate (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 39.
Q27. What, if anything, can be done to help asylum officers better
identify whether or not fraud exists in the cases they adjudicate?
Q28. What, if anything, do you think can be done to deter or cut down
on fraud in affirmative asylum cases?
Country Condition Information:
Q29. How useful do you think each of the following types of case-
specific information would be in adjudicating affirmative asylum cases?
a. Entire visa application in addition to what is available in CCD;
Very useful (percent): 88;
Moderately useful (percent): 5;
Slightly useful (percent): 8;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
b. Department of State advisory opinion;
Very useful (percent): 28;
Moderately useful (percent): 25;
Slightly useful (percent): 33;
Not at all useful (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 40.
c. Overseas employment records or verification;
Very useful (percent): 88;
Moderately useful (percent): 3;
Slightly useful (percent): 10;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
d. Overseas medical records or verification;
Very useful (percent): 85;
Moderately useful (percent): 8;
Slightly useful (percent): 8;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
e. Other;
Very useful (percent): 78;
Moderately useful (percent): 0;
Slightly useful (percent): 6;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 17;
Number of respondents: 18.
Q30. How well do you understand the process(es) used in your office for
requesting overseas verification (e.g., employment or medical records
or verification)?
Greatly understand (percent): 16;
Moderately understand (percent): 41;
Slightly understand (percent): 16;
Hardly or not at all understand (percent): 27;
Number of respondents: 37.
[End of table]
Q31. How, if at all, do you think the process(es) could be improved for
requesting and obtaining overseas verification?
Training:
Q32. How much, if at all, do you think asylum officers need additional
training on the following topics to improve their ability to adjudicate
affirmative asylum claims?
a. Asylum process and procedures;
Greatly need (percent): 32;
Moderately need (percent): 29;
Slightly need (percent): 39;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 38.
b. Conducting identity and security checks (i.e., database queries and
any related research);
Greatly need (percent): 23;
Moderately need (percent): 63;
Slightly need (percent): 15;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
c. Interpreting the results of identity and security checks;
Greatly need (percent): 38;
Moderately need (percent): 50;
Slightly need (percent): 10;
Not at all need: 3;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
d. One-year filing deadline;
Greatly need (percent): 13;
Moderately need (percent): 30;
Slightly need (percent): 48;
Not at all need: 10;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
e. Mandatory bars to asylum;
Greatly need (percent): 23;
Moderately need (percent): 50;
Slightly need (percent): 23;
Not at all need: 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
f. Issues related to national security;
Greatly need (percent): 33;
Moderately need (percent): 40;
Slightly need (percent): 28;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
g. Overall interviewing skills;
Greatly need (percent): 53;
Moderately need (percent): 35;
Slightly need (percent): 13;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
h. Eliciting sufficient information during interviews;
Greatly need (percent): 58;
Moderately need (percent): 25;
Slightly need (percent): 18;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
i. Remaining non-adversarial during interviews;
Greatly need (percent): 13;
Moderately need (percent): 35;
Slightly need (percent): 35;
Not at all need: 18;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
j. Intercultural communication and other factors that may impede
communication in the interview;
Greatly need (percent): 20;
Moderately need (percent): 28;
Slightly need (percent): 40;
Not at all need: 10;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 40.
k. Understanding how stress and trauma may affect the interview;
Greatly need (percent): 23;
Moderately need (percent): 33;
Slightly need (percent): 40;
Not at all need: 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
l. Assessing credibility;
Greatly need (percent): 50;
Moderately need (percent): 45;
Slightly need (percent): 5;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
m. Current trends in fraud;
Greatly need (percent): 28;
Moderately need (percent): 65;
Slightly need (percent): 8;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
n. Identifying fraudulent documents;
Greatly need (percent): 55;
Moderately need (percent): 30;
Slightly need (percent): 13;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 40.
o. Identifying fraud in claim;
Greatly need (percent): 43;
Moderately need (percent): 38;
Slightly need (percent): 18;
Not at all need: 3;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
p. Identifying interpreter fraud;
Greatly need (percent): 26;
Moderately need (percent): 56;
Slightly need (percent): 13;
Not at all need: 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
q. Identifying preparer fraud;
Greatly need (percent): 33;
Moderately need (percent): 48;
Slightly need (percent): 15;
Not at all need: 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
r. Identifying attorney fraud;
Greatly need (percent): 33;
Moderately need (percent): 43;
Slightly need (percent): 20;
Not at all need: 5;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
s. Using the Asylum Virtual Library;
Greatly need (percent): 30;
Moderately need (percent): 45;
Slightly need (percent): 25;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
t. Other country condition research methods;
Greatly need (percent): 23;
Moderately need (percent): 48;
Slightly need (percent): 28;
Not at all need: 3;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
u. Country condition updates;
Greatly need (percent): 23;
Moderately need (percent): 44;
Slightly need (percent): 31;
Not at all need: 3;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
v. Applying country condition information;
Greatly need (percent): 15;
Moderately need (percent): 59;
Slightly need (percent): 23;
Not at all need: 3;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
w. U.S. asylum law (e.g., case law, changes in statute and
regulations);
Greatly need (percent): 35;
Moderately need (percent): 43;
Slightly need (percent): 23;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
x. Conducting legal research;
Greatly need (percent): 33;
Moderately need (percent): 38;
Slightly need (percent): 28;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 39.
y. Applying the REAL ID Act;
Greatly need (percent): 35;
Moderately need (percent): 55;
Slightly need (percent): 10;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
z. Writing decisions;
Greatly need (percent): 25;
Moderately need (percent): 45;
Slightly need (percent): 30;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
aa. Time management;
Greatly need (percent): 65;
Moderately need (percent): 20;
Slightly need (percent): 15;
Not at all need: 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q33. Are there topics, other than those listed in the previous
question, that you think should be addressed through training for
asylum officers?
Yes (percent): 22;
No (percent): 44;
Don't know (percent): 34;
Number of respondents: 32.
Q34. What other topic(s) should be addressed through training for
asylum officers?
Q35. Have you attended the Asylum Division's 2-week Supervisory Asylum
Officer's Training Course?
Yes (percent): 65;
No (percent): 35;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q36. Overall, how well or poorly did the Asylum Division's 2-week
Supervisory Asylum Officer's Training Course prepare you for reviewing
asylum officer decisions? [Where Q35 is "Yes"]
Very well (percent): 36;
Moderately well (percent): 20;
Neither well nor poorly (percent): 32;
Moderately poorly (percent): 4;
Very poorly (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 25.
Q37. Do you think the Asylum Division's 2-week Supervisory Asylum
Officer's Training Course needs to be improved in any of the following
areas to help you better carry out your duties as a supervisory asylum
officer? [Where Q35 is "Yes"]
a. Providing feedback on asylum officer written decisions;
Yes (percent): 54;
No (percent): 42;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
b. Providing feedback on asylum officer interviews;
Yes (percent): 42;
No (percent): 54;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
c. Analyzing credibility;
Yes (percent): 50;
No (percent): 46;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
d. Understanding concepts of burden of proof;
Yes (percent): 42;
No (percent): 54;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
e. Identifying and analyzing mandatory bars to asylum;
Yes (percent): 38;
No (percent): 58;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
f. Analyzing nexus to a protected characteristic;
Yes (percent): 33;
No (percent): 63;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
g. Analyzing whether harm rises to the level of persecution;
Yes (percent): 25;
No (percent): 71;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
h. Understanding and contributing to Asylum Division efforts to combat
asylum fraud;
Yes (percent): 52;
No (percent): 39;
Don't know (percent): 9;
Number of respondents: 23.
i. Analyzing the one-year filing deadline requirement and exceptions;
Yes (percent): 29;
No (percent): 67;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 24.
Q38. As a supervisor, is there any additional training that you think
should be provided to improve your ability to do your job or contribute
to the Asylum Program?
Closing:
Q39. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for
improving the quality of the asylum process or adjudications within
USCIS.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Survey of Immigration Judges:
We sent our Web-based survey to all immigration judges who were in
their position at the end of fiscal year 2006. We received 160
responses from immigration judges, resulting in a 77 percent response
rate. To ensure survey respondents had recent knowledge about the
issues our survey explored, 1 of the 160 respondents was directed to
not complete the rest of survey because his or her response to an
initial question indicated that the immigration judge had heard no, or
almost no, asylum cases over the past year. Although 159 immigration
judges completed the survey, the number answering any particular
question may be lower, depending on how many chose to answer any given
question. In addition, for certain questions, respondents were
instructed to skip particular questions based on their responses to
previous questions. Each question includes the number of asylum
officers responding to it.
Our survey was comprised of closed-and open-ended questions. In this
appendix, we include all the survey questions and aggregate results of
responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not provide information
on responses provided to the open-ended questions. For a more detailed
discussion of our survey methodology see appendix IV.
Background:
Q1. How many years have you served as a United States Immigration
Judge? (In years):
Mean: 11;
Median: 12;
Minimum: 1;
Maximum: 27;
Number of respondents: 158.
Q2. Of the cases you have heard during the past year, about how many
would you say were asylum cases?
All or almost all cases (percent): 4;
Most cases (percent): 39;
About half the cases (percent): 36;
Some cases (percent): 20;
No or almost no cases (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 160.
Q3. Which of the following statements best describes the detention
status of asylum applicants who appear before you?
All or almost all are detained (percent): 14;
Most are detained (percent): 4;
About half are detained (percent): 2;
Some are detained (percent): 26;
None or almost none are detained (percent): 53;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 159.
Q4. In general, how would you compare the overall complexity of the
asylum cases you hear to the other types of immigration cases you hear,
taking into account factors such as case law, facts of the case, and
country conditions?
Asylum cases I hear are generally much more complex than other
immigration cases. (percent): 48;
Asylum cases I hear are generally slightly more complex than other
immigration cases. (percent): 29;
There is generally no difference between the complexity in the asylum
cases I hear and other immigration cases. (percent): 14;
Asylum cases I hear are generally slightly less complex than other
immigration cases. (percent): 6;
Asylum cases I hear are generally much less complex than other
immigration cases. (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 157.
Resources:
Q5. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the current
quality of the following resources in helping you carry out your
judicial responsibilities?
a. In-house interpreters;
Very satisfied (percent): 63;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 28;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 4;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 5;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 144.
b. Contracted interpreters: in person;
Very satisfied (percent): 28;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 58;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 6;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 6;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 156.
c. Contracted interpreters: over the phone;
Very satisfied (percent): 6;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 36;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 16;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 21;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 18;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 154.
d. Transcription services;
Very satisfied (percent): 4;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 16;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 15;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 36;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 28;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 151.
e. Recording equipment;
Very satisfied (percent): 0;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 5;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 4;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 18;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 72;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
f. Other;
Very satisfied (percent): 4;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 0;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 0;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 16;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 76;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 25.
Q6. In your opinion, how much, if at all, would each of the following
changes improve your ability to carry out your judicial
responsibilities?
a. Additional immigration judges in your court;
Greatly improve (percent): 63;
Moderately improve (percent): 21;
Slightly improve (percent): 8;
Not at all improve (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
b. Additional law clerks in your court;
Greatly improve (percent): 87;
Moderately improve (percent): 10;
Slightly improve (percent): 2;
Not at all improve (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 158.
c. Additional administrative staff in your court;
Greatly improve (percent): 45;
Moderately improve (percent): 32;
Slightly improve (percent): 16;
Not at all improve (percent): 6;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
d. Additional on-bench reference materials;
Greatly improve (percent): 29;
Moderately improve (percent): 37;
Slightly improve (percent): 24;
Not at all improve (percent): 10;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
e. Standardized decision templates;
Greatly improve (percent): 24;
Moderately improve (percent): 30;
Slightly improve (percent): 23;
Not at all improve (percent): 23;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 151.
f. Updates to the current Immigration Judge Benchbook;
Greatly improve (percent): 23;
Moderately improve (percent): 32;
Slightly improve (percent): 28;
Not at all improve (percent): 15;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 151.
g. Written transcripts of your proceedings before you make a decision;
Greatly improve (percent): 53;
Moderately improve (percent): 18;
Slightly improve (percent): 13;
Not at all improve (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 151.
h. Digital courtroom recording equipment;
Greatly improve (percent): 73;
Moderately improve (percent): 10;
Slightly improve (percent): 4;
Not at all improve (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 157.
i. Access to Asylum Program's Virtual Library (formerly Resource
Information Center);
Greatly improve (percent): 30;
Moderately improve (percent): 38;
Slightly improve (percent): 13;
Not at all improve (percent): 7;
Don't know (percent): 12;
Number of respondents: 151.
j. Other;
Greatly improve (percent): 90;
Moderately improve (percent): 3;
Slightly improve (percent): 0;
Not at all improve (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 31.
Country Conditions:
Q7. In your opinion, how useful is each of the following sources of
country conditions information in helping you render decisions in
asylum cases?
a. Country conditions information contained in the asylum applicant's
file (from the Asylum Office);
Very useful (percent): 18;
Moderately useful (percent): 29;
Slightly useful (percent): 24;
Not at all useful (percent): 10;
Little or no experience (percent): 19;
Number of respondents: 154.
b. Country conditions information submitted by the government attorney
(DHS Assistant Chief Counsel);
Very useful (percent): 32;
Moderately useful (percent): 46;
Slightly useful (percent): 15;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Little or no experience (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 158.
c. Country conditions information submitted by the asylum applicant
during proceedings;
Very useful (percent): 32;
Moderately useful (percent): 47;
Slightly useful (percent): 19;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Little or no experience (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 158.
d. EOIR Virtual Law Library;
Very useful (percent): 39;
Moderately useful (percent): 36;
Slightly useful (percent): 14;
Not at all useful (percent): 4;
Little or no experience (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 156.
e. Department of State Web site;
Very useful (percent): 19;
Moderately useful (percent): 39;
Slightly useful (percent): 20;
Not at all useful (percent): 3;
Little or no experience (percent): 19;
Number of respondents: 156.
f. Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices and International Religious Freedom reports;
Very useful (percent): 52;
Moderately useful (percent): 35;
Slightly useful (percent): 12;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Little or no experience (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 155.
g. Department of State's Profiles of Asylum Claims and Country
Conditions;
Very useful (percent): 50;
Moderately useful (percent): 31;
Slightly useful (percent): 15;
Not at all useful (percent): 4;
Little or no experience (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 157.
h. Department of State's fraud summary reports;
Very useful (percent): 22;
Moderately useful (percent): 14;
Slightly useful (percent): 14;
Not at all useful (percent): 6;
Little or no experience (percent): 45;
Number of respondents: 155.
i. Specific responses to inquiries you made to the Department of
State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor;
Very useful (percent): 36;
Moderately useful (percent): 7;
Slightly useful (percent): 5;
Not at all useful (percent): 10;
Little or no experience (percent): 42;
Number of respondents: 149.
j. A law clerk's research;
Very useful (percent): 63;
Moderately useful (percent): 17;
Slightly useful (percent): 6;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Little or no experience (percent): 14;
Number of respondents: 153.
k. Your own research;
Very useful (percent): 68;
Moderately useful (percent): 22;
Slightly useful (percent): 2;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Little or no experience (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 149.
l. Other;
Very useful (percent): 75;
Moderately useful (percent): 10;
Slightly useful (percent): 0;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Little or no experience (percent): 15;
Number of respondents: 20.
Q8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the tools you
currently have for doing country conditions research?
Very satisfied (percent): 10;
Moderately satisfied (percent): 39;
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (percent): 17;
Moderately dissatisfied (percent): 24;
Very dissatisfied (percent): 9;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 156.
Assistance from Other Organizations:
Q9. How useful do you think each of the following types of case-
specific information would be in rendering your decisions in asylum
cases?
a. Visa application;
Very useful (percent): 61;
Moderately useful (percent): 23;
Slightly useful (percent): 10;
Not at all useful (percent): 3;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 158.
b. Document verification from the Forensic Document Laboratory;
Very useful (percent): 86;
Moderately useful (percent): 10;
Slightly useful (percent): 3;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 157.
c. Overseas medical document or verification;
Very useful (percent): 83;
Moderately useful (percent): 9;
Slightly useful (percent): 6;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 158.
d. Overseas employment document or verification;
Very useful (percent): 69;
Moderately useful (percent): 17;
Slightly useful (percent): 10;
Not at all useful (percent): 2;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 156.
e. Overseas investigation;
Very useful (percent): 86;
Moderately useful (percent): 7;
Slightly useful (percent): 4;
Not at all useful (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
f. Other case-specific information or services;
Very useful (percent): 78;
Moderately useful (percent): 10;
Slightly useful (percent): 2;
Not at all useful (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 49.
Q10. In about how many of the asylum cases you heard during the past
year did you need, but did not have, any of the following case-specific
information?
a. Visa application;
All or almost all cases (percent): 25;
Most cases (percent): 14;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 26;
None or almost no cases (percent): 23;
Unable to estimate (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 153.
b. Document verification from the Forensic Document Laboratory;
All or almost all cases (percent): 19;
Most cases (percent): 24;
About half the cases (percent): 15;
Some cases (percent): 27;
None or almost no cases (percent): 13;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 156.
c. Overseas medical document or verification;
All or almost all cases (percent): 24;
Most cases (percent): 17;
About half the cases (percent): 15;
Some cases (percent): 27;
None or almost no cases (percent): 14;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 153.
d. Overseas employment document or verification;
All or almost all cases (percent): 26;
Most cases (percent): 13;
About half the cases (percent): 9;
Some cases (percent): 24;
None or almost no cases (percent): 25;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 152.
e. Overseas investigation;
All or almost all cases (percent): 32;
Most cases (percent): 19;
About half the cases (percent): 8;
Some cases (percent): 19;
None or almost no cases (percent): 19;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 154.
f. Other case-specific information or services;
All or almost all cases (percent): 38;
Most cases (percent): 9;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 6;
None or almost no cases (percent): 22;
Unable to estimate (percent): 19;
Number of respondents: 32.
Q11. Thinking about your decision-making process in asylum cases, how
useful do you think it would be to receive the following information if
it were available?
a. Asylum officer's written decision;
Very useful (percent): 28;
Moderately useful (percent): 25;
Slightly useful (percent): 30;
Not at all useful (percent): 16;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 158.
b. Asylum officer's interview write-up;
Very useful (percent): 25;
Moderately useful (percent): 32;
Slightly useful (percent): 30;
Not at all useful (percent): 11;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 158.
c. Asylum officer's notes;
Very useful (percent): 24;
Moderately useful (percent): 28;
Slightly useful (percent): 29;
Not at all useful (percent): 18;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 157.
d. Transcripts of the asylum interview;
Very useful (percent): 61;
Moderately useful (percent): 22;
Slightly useful (percent): 11;
Not at all useful (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 157.
e. Recordings of the asylum interview;
Very useful (percent): 39;
Moderately useful (percent): 14;
Slightly useful (percent): 18;
Not at all useful (percent): 25;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 155.
Q12. What additional information, if any, would be useful to you in
rendering decisions in asylum cases?
Professional Development:
Q13. How much, if at all, has each of the following professional
development activities enhanced your ability to adjudicate asylum
cases?
a. Attending National Judicial College (training for new immigration
judges);
Greatly enhanced (percent): 27;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 17;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 13;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 8;
Little or no experience (percent): 35;
Number of respondents: 136.
b. Observing an experienced immigration judge in another court;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 30;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 33;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 15;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 5;
Little or no experience (percent): 17;
Number of respondents: 149.
c. Being mentored by an experienced immigration judge;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 33;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 27;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 15;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 6;
Little or no experience (percent): 20;
Number of respondents: 143.
d. Mentoring a new immigration judge;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 18;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 23;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 12;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 7;
Little or no experience (percent): 40;
Number of respondents: 146.
e. Attending national conferences for immigration judges in person;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 51;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 29;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 12;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 8;
Little or no experience (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 158.
f. Attending national conferences for immigration judges through
telephone, videoconference, tapes or CDs;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 3;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 12;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 37;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 38;
Little or no experience (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 156.
g. Attending a national conference panel on the REAL ID Act;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 21;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 17;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 6;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 9;
Little or no experience (percent): 47;
Number of respondents: 141.
h. Receiving monthly updates on immigration law developments;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 46;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 41;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 12;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 0;
Little or no experience (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 158.
i. Informal meetings with other immigration judges;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 54;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 31;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 6;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 3;
Little or no experience (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 156.
j. Other professional development opportunities;
Greatly enhanced (percent): 60;
Moderately enhanced (percent): 10;
Slightly enhanced (percent): 0;
Hardly or not at all enhanced (percent): 0;
Little or no experience (percent): 30;
Number of respondents: 40.
Q14. How much, if at all, do you need additional professional
development or training in the following areas to enhance your ability
to adjudicate asylum cases?
a. Assessing credibility;
Greatly needed (percent): 23;
Moderately needed (percent): 36;
Slightly needed (percent): 24;
Not at all needed (percent): 15;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 155.
b. Identifying fraud;
Greatly needed (percent): 43;
Moderately needed (percent): 30;
Slightly needed (percent): 16;
Not at all needed (percent): 8;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 152.
c. U.S. asylum law (e.g., changes in statute and regulations, BIA and
circuit court decisions);
Greatly needed (percent): 19;
Moderately needed (percent): 35;
Slightly needed (percent): 31;
Not at all needed (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 155.
d. One-year rule;
Greatly needed (percent): 5;
Moderately needed (percent): 11;
Slightly needed (percent): 36;
Not at all needed (percent): 46;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 157.
e. Rendering an oral decision;
Greatly needed (percent): 8;
Moderately needed (percent): 23;
Slightly needed (percent): 31;
Not at all needed (percent): 36;
Don't know (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
f. Rendering a written decision;
Greatly needed (percent): 6;
Moderately needed (percent): 17;
Slightly needed (percent): 29;
Not at all needed (percent): 45;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 154.
g. Time management training;
Greatly needed (percent): 12;
Moderately needed (percent): 18;
Slightly needed (percent): 23;
Not at all needed (percent): 43;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 155.
h. Sensitivity and cultural awareness training;
Greatly needed (percent): 8;
Moderately needed (percent): 19;
Slightly needed (percent): 36;
Not at all needed (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 157.
i. Non-governmental training and conferences;
Greatly needed (percent): 20;
Moderately needed (percent): 18;
Slightly needed (percent): 29;
Not at all needed (percent): 16;
Don't know (percent): 16;
Number of respondents: 153.
j. Inter-governmental agency conferences (DHS, State);
Greatly needed (percent): 26;
Moderately needed (percent): 29;
Slightly needed (percent): 21;
Not at all needed (percent): 12;
Don't know (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 156.
k. Observing how other immigration judges handle asylum cases in their
courtrooms;
Greatly needed (percent): 17;
Moderately needed (percent): 29;
Slightly needed (percent): 27;
Not at all needed (percent): 22;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 157.
l. Informal meetings with other immigration judges;
Greatly needed (percent): 36;
Moderately needed (percent): 39;
Slightly needed (percent): 15;
Not at all needed (percent): 5;
Don't know (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 156.
m. Detail opportunities at Board of Immigration Appeals;
Greatly needed (percent): 37;
Moderately needed (percent): 25;
Slightly needed (percent): 9;
Not at all needed (percent): 19;
Don't know (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 155.
n. Additional continuing education on asylum issues;
Greatly needed (percent): 41;
Moderately needed (percent): 35;
Slightly needed (percent): 17;
Not at all needed (percent): 4;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 156.
o. Other;
Greatly needed (percent): 70;
Moderately needed (percent): 5;
Slightly needed (percent): 0;
Not at all needed (percent): 0;
Don't know (percent): 25;
Number of respondents: 20.
Caseload:
Q15. Think about your allocated administrative time (time off the
bench). Over the past year, about what portion of that time, on
average, did you use to hear cases?
All or almost all of that time (percent): 41;
Most of that time (percent): 17;
About half of that time (percent): 10;
Some of that time (percent): 17;
None or almost none of that time (percent): 14;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 157.
Q16. On average, about how many hours do you think you need each week
to complete the work you do off the bench (e.g., manage your caseload,
stay current with case law, evaluate motions, and keep up with
administrative tasks)?
Mean: 11;
Median: 10;
Minimum: 4;
Maximum: 50;
Number of respondents: 156.
Q17. How much does each of the following factors help or hinder your
ability to manage your caseload?
a. Requirements for case completion goals;
Greatly help (percent): 3;
Somewhat help (percent): 6;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 18;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 24;
Greatly hinder (percent): 49;
Little or no experience (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 157.
b. Time requirements for expedited asylum cases;
Greatly help (percent): 3;
Somewhat help (percent): 6;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 21;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 34;
Greatly hinder (percent): 35;
Little or no experience (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
c. Deadlines for older cases awaiting adjudication;
Greatly help (percent): 3;
Somewhat help (percent): 9;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 18;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 24;
Greatly hinder (percent): 42;
Little or no experience (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 157.
d. Applicants withdrawing applications for asylum;
Greatly help (percent): 24;
Somewhat help (percent): 25;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 31;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 8;
Greatly hinder (percent): 2;
Little or no experience (percent): 11;
Number of respondents: 156.
e. Applicants who have representation;
Greatly help (percent): 65;
Somewhat help (percent): 21;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 11;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 3;
Greatly hinder (percent): 1;
Little or no experience (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 158.
f. Grouping cases by interpreters;
Greatly help (percent): 18;
Somewhat help (percent): 30;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 27;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 8;
Greatly hinder (percent): 4;
Little or no experience (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 154.
g. Serving as a visiting judge in another immigration court;
Greatly help (percent): 6;
Somewhat help (percent): 13;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 23;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 20;
Greatly hinder (percent): 16;
Little or no experience (percent): 23;
Number of respondents: 153.
h. Having a visiting immigration judge on detail in your court;
Greatly help (percent): 17;
Somewhat help (percent): 39;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 26;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 4;
Greatly hinder (percent): 0;
Little or no experience (percent): 13;
Number of respondents: 150.
i. Having immigration judges from other courts hear cases via
videoconference;
Greatly help (percent): 11;
Somewhat help (percent): 29;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 24;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 4;
Greatly hinder (percent): 1;
Little or no experience (percent): 32;
Number of respondents: 152.
j. Waiting for DHS to complete background checks;
Greatly help (percent): 1;
Somewhat help (percent): 1;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 14;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 40;
Greatly hinder (percent): 42;
Little or no experience (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 156.
k. Waiting for DHS to obtain forensic documents;
Greatly help (percent): 3;
Somewhat help (percent): 3;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 10;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 37;
Greatly hinder (percent): 42;
Little or no experience (percent): 6;
Number of respondents: 158.
l. Applicants seeking to change venue without a valid basis;
Greatly help (percent): 1;
Somewhat help (percent): 0;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 44;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 26;
Greatly hinder (percent): 18;
Little or no experience (percent): 12;
Number of respondents: 154.
m. Double booking cases;
Greatly help (percent): 7;
Somewhat help (percent): 16;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 15;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 21;
Greatly hinder (percent): 23;
Little or no experience (percent): 19;
Number of respondents: 155.
n. Other;
Greatly help (percent): 5;
Somewhat help (percent): 5;
Neither help nor hinder (percent): 0;
Somewhat hinder (percent): 14;
Greatly hinder (percent): 67;
Little or no experience (percent): 10;
Number of respondents: 21.
Credibility and Fraud:
Q18. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases did you find
each of the following to be an impediment to assessing credibility?
a. Lack of documentary evidence;
All or almost all cases (percent): 19;
Most cases (percent): 28;
About half the cases (percent): 23;
Some cases (percent): 26;
No or almost no cases (percent): 2;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 156.
b. Insufficient time to prepare for and review cases;
All or almost all cases (percent): 14;
Most cases (percent): 16;
About half the cases (percent): 10;
Some cases (percent): 35;
No or almost no cases (percent): 24;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 155.
c. Quality of interpretation in the courtroom;
All or almost all cases (percent): 1;
Most cases (percent): 1;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 57;
No or almost no cases (percent): 33;
Unable to estimate (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 155.
d. Lack of document verification from Forensic Document Laboratory;
All or almost all cases (percent): 15;
Most cases (percent): 21;
About half the cases (percent): 9;
Some cases (percent): 45;
No or almost no cases (percent): 8;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 156.
e. Lack of document verification from overseas;
All or almost all cases (percent): 25;
Most cases (percent): 21;
About half the cases (percent): 10;
Some cases (percent): 35;
No or almost no cases (percent): 5;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 156.
f. Lack of other overseas information on applicants;
All or almost all cases (percent): 29;
Most cases (percent): 26;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 29;
No or almost no cases (percent): 6;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 156.
g. Lack of information on country conditions;
All or almost all cases (percent): 2;
Most cases (percent): 8;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 39;
No or almost no cases (percent): 41;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 157.
h. Lack of a record from the asylum officer's interview;
All or almost all cases (percent): 13;
Most cases (percent): 7;
About half the cases (percent): 6;
Some cases (percent): 32;
No or almost no cases (percent): 37;
Unable to estimate (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 152.
Q19. What other factors, if any, would you consider to be significant
impediments to assessing credibility?
Q20. How familiar are you with EOIR's Fraud and Abuse Program?
Very familiar (percent): 12;
Moderately familiar (percent): 26;
Somewhat familiar (percent): 39;
Not at all familiar (percent): 20;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 157.
Q21. Of the asylum cases you heard during the past year, about how many
cases did you refer to EOIR's Fraud and Abuse Program?
All or almost all cases (percent): 0;
Most cases (percent): 0;
About half the cases (percent): 0;
Some cases (percent): 6;
No or almost no cases (percent): 94;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 154.
Q22. Overall, how easy or difficult is it for you to identify each of
the following types of suspected fraud in asylum cases?
a. Suspected document fraud;
Very easy (percent): 4;
Moderately easy (percent): 21;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 16;
Moderately difficult (percent): 31;
Very difficult (percent): 25;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 154.
b. Suspected identity fraud;
Very easy (percent): 1;
Moderately easy (percent): 16;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 14;
Moderately difficult (percent): 32;
Very difficult (percent): 34;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 154.
c. Suspected preparer fraud;
Very easy (percent): 4;
Moderately easy (percent): 22;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15;
Moderately difficult (percent): 31;
Very difficult (percent): 26;
Don't know (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 152.
d. Suspected fraud in the claim;
Very easy (percent): 2;
Moderately easy (percent): 24;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 18;
Moderately difficult (percent): 30;
Very difficult (percent): 24;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 154.
e. Suspected attorney fraud;
Very easy (percent): 1;
Moderately easy (percent): 17;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 15;
Moderately difficult (percent): 27;
Very difficult (percent): 39;
Don't know (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 151.
f. Other;
Very easy (percent): 6;
Moderately easy (percent): 19;
Neither easy nor difficult (percent): 6;
Moderately difficult (percent): 19;
Very difficult (percent): 25;
Don't know (percent): 25;
Number of respondents: 16.
Q23. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases would you say
the following types of suspected fraud presented a challenge for you in
deciding cases?
a. Suspected document fraud;
All or almost all cases (percent): 8;
Most cases (percent): 14;
About half the cases (percent): 21;
Some cases (percent): 50;
No or almost no cases (percent): 5;
Unable to estimate (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 155.
b. Suspected identity fraud;
All or almost all cases (percent): 1;
Most cases (percent): 3;
About half the cases (percent): 12;
Some cases (percent): 56;
No or almost no cases (percent): 23;
Unable to estimate (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 154.
c. Suspected preparer fraud;
All or almost all cases (percent): 4;
Most cases (percent): 7;
About half the cases (percent): 13;
Some cases (percent): 61;
No or almost no cases (percent): 11;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 152.
d. Suspected fraud in the claim;
All or almost all cases (percent): 6;
Most cases (percent): 19;
About half the cases (percent): 29;
Some cases (percent): 39;
No or almost no cases (percent): 4;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Number of respondents: 154.
e. Suspected attorney fraud;
All or almost all cases (percent): 1;
Most cases (percent): 3;
About half the cases (percent): 8;
Some cases (percent): 42;
No or almost no cases (percent): 39;
Unable to estimate (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 149.
f. Other;
All or almost all cases (percent): 0;
Most cases (percent): 15;
About half the cases (percent): 31;
Some cases (percent): 23;
No or almost no cases (percent): 15;
Unable to estimate (percent): 15;
Number of respondents: 13.
Rendering a Decision:
Q24. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases were you
satisfied with the level of preparation by the attorneys who appeared
in your courtroom?
a. Government attorney (DHS Assistant Chief Counsel);
All or almost all cases (percent): 4;
Most cases (percent): 39;
About half the cases (percent): 30;
Some cases (percent): 21;
No or almost no cases (percent): 6;
Unable to estimate (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 155.
b. Applicant's attorney;
All or almost all cases (percent): 1;
Most cases (percent): 22;
About half the cases (percent): 46;
Some cases (percent): 30;
No or almost no cases (percent): 1;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 152.
Q25. In about how many of the asylum cases you heard during the past
year, did issues related to the one-year rule (date of entry or
eligibility for exceptions to the rule) have to be resolved?
All or almost all cases (percent): 4;
Most cases (percent): 16;
About half the cases (percent): 36;
Some cases (percent): 43;
No or almost no cases (percent): 2;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 157.
Q26. Think about the cases you heard during the past year in which
issues related to the one-year rule had to be resolved. On average,
about how much time did you spend per case adjudicating the issue?
Less than half an hour (percent): 39;
At least half an hour but less than 1 hour (percent): 39;
At least 1 hour but less than 2 hours (percent): 15;
2 hours or more (percent): 3;
Unable to estimate (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 157.
Q27. Of the cases in which you denied asylum during the past year,
about how many did you deny solely because you found that the applicant
was ineligible due to the one-year rule?
All or almost all cases (percent): 1;
Most cases (percent): 3;
About half the cases (percent): 8;
Some cases (percent): 73;
No or almost no cases (percent): 10;
Unable to estimate (percent): 4;
Number of respondents: 157.
Q28. Over the past year, in about how many asylum cases did you make a
frivolous application finding?
All or almost all cases (percent): 0;
Most cases (percent): 0;
About half the cases (percent): 0;
Some cases (percent): 23;
No or almost no cases (percent): 77;
Unable to estimate (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 158.
Q29. What, if any, barriers do you face in making a frivolous
application finding?
Q30. Overall, do you think the process involved in adjudicating asylum
cases makes it easier for you to grant asylum or easier to deny asylum?
Much easier to grant asylum (percent): 25;
Generally easier to grant asylum (percent): 22;
No easier to grant than to deny asylum (percent): 42;
Generally easier to deny asylum (percent): 5;
Much easier to deny asylum (percent): 1;
Don't know (percent): 5;
Number of respondents: 153.
Q31. If you found that it was easier to decide asylum cases in a
particular way, what about the process makes it easier to decide cases
in that way?
Challenges:
Q32. How challenging, if at all, do you find each of the following
aspects of adjudicating asylum cases?
a. Time limitations;
Very challenging (percent): 58;
Moderately challenging (percent): 25;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 13;
Not at all challenging (percent): 5;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 158.
b. Managing your caseload;
Very challenging (percent): 45;
Moderately challenging (percent): 32;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 17;
Not at all challenging (percent): 6;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 157.
c. Assessing credibility;
Very challenging (percent): 49;
Moderately challenging (percent): 32;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 16;
Not at all challenging (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 156.
d. Identifying suspected fraud;
Very challenging (percent): 39;
Moderately challenging (percent): 32;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 24;
Not at all challenging (percent): 4;
Not applicable (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 153.
e. Verifying fraud;
Very challenging (percent): 73;
Moderately challenging (percent): 15;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 9;
Not at all challenging (percent): 1;
Not applicable (percent): 2;
Number of respondents: 151.
f. Identifying national security risks;
Very challenging (percent): 43;
Moderately challenging (percent): 23;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 23;
Not at all challenging (percent): 3;
Not applicable (percent): 7;
Number of respondents: 150.
g. Staying current with case law;
Very challenging (percent): 19;
Moderately challenging (percent): 39;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 32;
Not at all challenging (percent): 10;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 157.
h. Staying current with country conditions;
Very challenging (percent): 20;
Moderately challenging (percent): 34;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 38;
Not at all challenging (percent): 8;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 157.
i. Having to render oral decisions immediately after hearing cases;
Very challenging (percent): 50;
Moderately challenging (percent): 21;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 21;
Not at all challenging (percent): 8;
Not applicable (percent): 1;
Number of respondents: 157.
j. Reserving a decision for later delivery;
Very challenging (percent): 33;
Moderately challenging (percent): 27;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 19;
Not at all challenging (percent): 13;
Not applicable (percent): 8;
Number of respondents: 153.
k. Attorney preparedness;
Very challenging (percent): 38;
Moderately challenging (percent): 38;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 19;
Not at all challenging (percent): 4;
Not applicable (percent): 0;
Number of respondents: 156.
l. Other;
Very challenging (percent): 83;
Moderately challenging (percent): 6;
Somewhat challenging (percent): 0;
Not at all challenging (percent): 0;
Not applicable (percent): 11;
Number of respondents: 18.
Q33. From the following list, which three do you see as posing the
greatest challenge to you in adjudicating asylum cases? Please check no
more than three boxes.
a. Time limitations; Number of respondents: 83.
b. Managing your caseload; Number of respondents: 44.
c. Assessing credibility; Number of respondents: 76.
d. Identifying suspected fraud; Number of respondents: 19.
e. Verifying fraud; Number of respondents: 52.
f. Identifying national security risks; Number of respondents: 14.
g. Staying current with case law; Number of respondents: 16.
h. Staying current with country conditions; Number of respondents: 11.
i. Having to render oral decisions immediately after hearing cases;
Number of respondents: 61.
j. Reserving a decision for later delivery; Number of respondents: 16.
k. Attorney preparedness; Number of respondents: 53.
l. Other; Number of respondents: 8.
Closing Comments:
Q34. Please provide any additional comments or ideas you have for
improving the asylum process.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Survey and Site-Visit Methodology:
Survey Methodology:
To corroborate information and pursue issues we identified during our
research on the U.S. Asylum System and our interviews with agency
officials, we developed and deployed three different Web-based surveys
to (1) asylum officers, (2) supervisory asylum officers, and (3)
immigration judges. We asked asylum officers about their views on areas
including training, conducting identity and security checks,
interviewing and assessing credibility, assessing fraud, country-
condition information, workload, and decision making. We asked
supervisory asylum officers about their views on areas including their
own responsibilities and training as well as asylum officers'
responsibilities and training. We asked immigration judges about their
views on areas including professional development, credibility and
fraud in asylum cases, rendering an asylum decision, and caseload.
Survey Development:
GAO social science survey specialists along with GAO staff
knowledgeable about asylum adjudications developed the three survey
instruments. We sent drafts of the asylum officer survey and
supervisory asylum officer survey to Asylum Division officials for
preliminary reviews to ensure that our questions were clear and
unambiguous, used clear terminology and appropriate response options,
and that the survey was comprehensive and unbiased. We sent a draft of
the survey of immigration judges to Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) officials and Assistant Chief Immigration Judges for the
same purpose. We also asked for and received comments from the asylum
officer representative to the American Federation of Government
Employees on the draft asylum officer survey and representatives from
the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) on the draft
immigration judge survey. We considered comments and suggestions from
all parties and made revisions where we thought they were warranted.
We conducted pretests of the three surveys to ensure that the questions
were clear and concise, and refined the instruments based on feedback
we received. We pretested the asylum officer survey with eight asylum
officers with a range of experience levels in five different Asylum
Offices. We conducted these pretests using a combination of in-person,
telephone, and Web-based approaches. We conducted pretests of the
supervisory asylum officer survey with three supervisors with varying
levels of experience in three different Asylum Offices; all were
conducted by telephone and one used a Web-based approach. We conducted
pretests of the immigration judge survey by telephone with three
immigration judges in three different immigration courts.
Identification of Survey Respondents:
To develop mailing lists for the asylum officer and supervisory asylum
officer surveys, we obtained from the Asylum Division the name, Asylum
Office, and e-mail address of every onboard asylum officer and
supervisor along with the date each officer began his or her position.
Similarly, to develop a mailing list for the immigration judge survey,
we obtained from EOIR the name, immigration court, and e-mail address
of every onboard immigration judge along with the date each immigration
judge began his or her position. We excluded from this list Assistant
Chief Immigration Judges because we provided them with the opportunity
to review a survey draft and provide comments. To ensure that we
solicited information only from those who had some basic level of
experience on which to draw, we sent surveys only to individuals who
had been in their position for at least approximately 6 months--that
is, they were on board as of September 30, 2006, the end of fiscal year
2006. Two hundred fifty-six asylum officers, 56 supervisory asylum
officers, and 207 immigration judges met the criterion.
Survey-Distribution Timeframes and Response Rates:
Asylum officer survey. We announced our upcoming Web-based survey of
asylum officers on March 1, 2007, and e-mailed asylum officers a cover
letter and link to the survey on March 5. The Chief of the Asylum
Division also informed Asylum Office staff of our survey efforts and
encouraged asylum officers to participate, noting that participation
was voluntary, and directed Asylum Office management to provide all
asylum officers with 2 hours of administrative time during which they
could elect to complete the survey. During the period from March 5
through April 30 (the final deadline for completing the survey), we e-
mailed reminder notices five times to asylum officers who had not
responded, encouraging them to participate. On April 24, we followed up
by telephone with 17 asylum officers--all those who had begun, but had
not finished, the survey. We received 189 responses from asylum
officers, resulting in a 74 percent response rate. Of the 189
respondents, 171 said that, over the past year, their primary
responsibilities included adjudicating asylum cases and that they had
adjudicated at least some affirmative asylum cases, which was the focus
of our review. The remaining 18 asylum officers who said their primary
responsibilities did not include adjudicating asylum cases or they had
not adjudicated at least some asylum cases over the past year were
directed to not complete the rest of survey.
Supervisory asylum officer survey. With respect to the Web-based survey
of supervisory asylum officers, we announced the survey on March 12,
2007, and e-mailed supervisory asylum officers a cover letter and link
to the survey on March 14. As with the asylum officer survey, the Chief
of the Asylum Division also informed Asylum Office staff of our survey
efforts and encouraged supervisors to participate, noting that
participation was voluntary, and directed Asylum Office management to
provide all supervisors with 2 hours of administrative time during
which they could elect to complete the survey. During the period from
March 12 through May 6 (the final deadline for completing the survey),
we e-mailed reminder notices four times to supervisory asylum officers
who had not responded, encouraging them to participate.
On April 24, we followed up by telephone with 3 supervisory asylum
officers--all those who had begun, but had not finished, the survey. We
received 43 responses from supervisory asylum officers, resulting in a
77 percent response rate. Of the 43 respondents, 40 said that they had
reviewed at least some affirmative asylum decisions over the past year.
The remaining 3 supervisory asylum officers who said they reviewed no
or almost no asylum cases over the past year were directed to not
complete the rest of the survey. Percentages for data from relatively
small populations, such as supervisor asylum officers, may convey a
level of precision that can be misleading because they can change
greatly with minor changes in the data. Thus, in reporting supervisory
asylum officers' survey responses throughout this report, we generally
identified the number in addition to the percentage of supervisory
asylum officers who responded to a question in a particular way.
Immigration judge survey. We announced our upcoming Web-based survey of
immigration judges on May 25, 2007, and e-mailed a cover letter and
link to the survey on May 30. The President of NAIJ encouraged
immigration judges to participate. During the period from May 30
through July 29 (the final deadline for completing the survey), we e-
mailed reminder notices five times to immigration judges who had not
responded, encouraging them to participate. From July 12 through July
16, 2007, we followed up by telephone with the 65 immigration judges
who had not completed the survey. We surveyed all 207 immigration
judges who were on board as of September 30, 2006, and received 160
responses for a 77 percent response rate. Of the 160 respondents, 159
said that they had heard at least some asylum cases over the past year.
The one immigration judge who had not adjudicated any asylum cases over
the past year was directed to not complete the rest of the survey.
Survey Analysis:
In analyzing the three surveys, we computed descriptive statistics on
the closed-ended survey responses and conducted a systematic content
analysis on selected open-ended survey responses. (See app. I, app. II,
and app. III, respectively, for aggregate responses to the asylum
officer, supervisory asylum officer, and immigration judge survey).
To analyze the content of responses of asylum officers and supervisors
to particular open-ended questions, two staff members independently
reviewed all the responses and identified preliminary response
categories, and then mutually agreed on response categories. They
subsequently reviewed responses, again, and independently placed them
into appropriate categories. Any discrepancies were discussed and
resolved, with a third team member being consulted when needed.
Because these were not sample surveys, but rather a census of all the
relevant groups, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical
difficulties of conducting any surveys may introduce nonsampling
errors. For example, differences in how a particular question was
interpreted or the sources of information available to respondents can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included
steps in both the data-collection and data-analysis stages for the
purposes of minimizing such nonsampling errors. As indicated above,
social science survey specialists designed the draft questionnaires in
close collaboration with GAO subject matter experts, and drafts were
reviewed for accuracy by agency officials. Versions of the
questionnaire were pretested with several members of each of the
populations. Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered
their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating
the need to key data into a database, minimizing error. We examined the
survey results and performed computer analyses to identify
inconsistencies and other indications of error. A second, independent
analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses.
Site Visits:
To gain a better understanding of asylum adjudications, we visited
three of the Asylum Division's eight Asylum Offices--Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and New York. The views we obtained at these three offices
may not be generalized to all eight Asylum Offices. However, since we
selected these offices based on their diversity in size (based on the
number of asylum officers and cases adjudicated), percentage of cases
granted asylum, and geographic location, they provided us with an
overview and perspective of the asylum process as well as potential
challenges facing asylum officers. At each of the three offices, we
conducted semistructured interviews with the Asylum Office Director and
Deputy Director, a Quality Assurance and Training Coordinator, and the
Fraud Detection and National Security Immigration Officer; and at two
of the three offices, we interviewed the Fraud Prevention Coordinator.
[Footnote 76]
In addition, we interviewed a total of 14 asylum officers and 5
supervisory asylum officers among the three offices. At one office, we
asked the Director to identify 2 asylum officers and 1 supervisory
asylum officer for us to interview. At the other two offices, we
selected asylum officers and supervisors using a random sampling
approach that we stratified based on experience levels. The composition
of each office in terms of number and experience levels of officers and
staff availability affected who we were able to interview. Between
these two offices, we interviewed 12 asylum officers (5 officers with
more than 8 years of experience who we categorized as "very
experienced," 4 officers with between 2 and 8 years of experience who
we categorized as "experienced," and 3 officers with less than 2 years
of experience who we categorized as "less experienced"). At each of
these 2 offices, we interviewed 1 "very experienced" and 1
"experienced" supervisory asylum officer. Between the 2 offices, we
also observed a total of 14 interviews that asylum officers conducted
with asylum applicants. In addition, we observed a local training
session at each of these 2 offices.
To obtain an additional perspective on factors that may affect asylum
officers' and immigration judges' adjudication of asylum cases, we
interviewed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant
Chief Counsels (also known as ICE trial attorneys) associated with
immigration courts in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, and
New York City, New York who were identified by an ICE Deputy Chief
Counsel as having experience with asylum cases. As the government's
representative in removal proceedings, ICE trial attorneys see asylum
cases that come before the immigration court. In Los Angeles and San
Francisco, we met with a Deputy Chief Counsel and a total of three ICE
trial attorneys; in New York City, we met with four ICE trial
attorneys. To further our understanding of factors affecting
immigration judges' asylum adjudications, we visited the Los Angeles
immigration court where we interviewed four immigration judges and
observed court proceedings, which included initial and merit hearings
on asylum cases.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through
September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Asylum Adjudication Process:
Asylum Adjudication Process within DHS:
The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) affirmative asylum process
generally consists of several steps. The alien initiates the process by
filing an asylum application at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) Service Center,[Footnote 77] where the case is entered
into the Refugees, Asylum, and Parole System and some background,
identity, and security checks are automatically initiated. Service
Center personnel send automatically generated notices to the
applicants, requiring them to appear for biometrics collection,
including fingerprints, at a USCIS Application Support Center prior to
the asylum interview. Service Center personnel send the applicant's
file to the Asylum Office that has jurisdiction over the applicant's
place of residence. Within 21 days of filing, the Asylum Office sends
an automatically generated interview notice to the applicant. The
Asylum Office is allocated at least 15 days to complete the
adjudication after conducting the interview. Generally, cases are
randomly assigned to asylum officers who are required by law to conduct
interviews with applicants within 45 days of the application filing
date in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The purpose of the
interview is to verify the applicant's identity, establish the
applicant's alienage, evaluate the applicant's credibility, and
determine whether the applicant is eligible for asylum. Applicants are
permitted, but not required, to bring their own attorney or accredited
representative to the interview. If the applicant is not fluent in
English, the applicant is required to bring an interpreter to the
asylum interview. Within 4 days of the interview, the asylum officer is
to prepare the written decision and submit it to a supervisory asylum
officer.[Footnote 78] The supervisor is to review the decision to
ensure the asylum officer's decision is supported by law and that
procedures are properly followed. The supervisor either signs or
returns it to the asylum officer for correction. Applicants interviewed
at Asylum Offices are required to return to the asylum office 2 weeks
after the interview and within 60 days of filing the asylum application
to receive the asylum decision.
Asylum Adjudication Process within DOJ:
Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Executive Office for
Immigration Review's (EOIR) asylum process generally consists of the
following steps. The applicant is to appear before an immigration judge
for an initial hearing, during which the immigration judge is to, among
other things, (a) ensure that the applicant understands the contents of
the Notice to Appear, (b) provide the applicant information on
available free of charge or low-cost legal representation in the area,
and (c) schedule a subsequent date to hear the merits of the asylum
claim. At that time, the immigration judge also hears the pleadings of
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) trial attorney and
the applicant. Prior to the merits hearing, the ICE trial attorney, and
the applicant or the applicant's representative must submit
applications, exhibits, motions, a witness list, and criminal history
to the immigration court, if applicable. The ICE trial attorney and the
applicant, or the applicant's representative, may also submit
prehearing briefs or statements for the immigration judge to review in
advance of the hearing to narrow the legal issues. In some cases
attorneys, or the immigration judge, may request a prehearing
conference for reasons including narrowing the issues or exchanging
information. A merits hearing is then held, during which the applicant
(or the applicant's representative) and an ICE trial attorney present
the case before the immigration judge by generally making opening
statements, presenting witnesses and evidence to the immigration judge,
cross-examining, and making closing statements.[Footnote 79]
The immigration judge may participate in the questioning of the
applicant or other witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the
immigration judge is to issue a decision that includes the facts that
were found to be true, an accurate statement of the law, factors that
were considered, and the weight that was given to the evidence
presented (including the credibility of witnesses). If the applicant or
ICE disagrees with the immigration judge's decision, either party may
appeal it to EOIR's Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) within 30 days.
If the BIA ruling is adverse to the applicant, the applicant generally
may file a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals.[Footnote
80]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Asylum Division and EOIR Caseload and Staffing
Information:
Asylum Division Caseload and Staffing Levels:
During fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division received
391,763 new cases, of which 63 percent consisted of asylum receipts--
that is, new or reopened asylum applications. As shown in figure 13,
asylum officers' annual caseload declined during this period, and
completions declined from fiscal year 2005 through 2007. [Footnote 81]
Figure 13: Asylum Division Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years
2002-2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked multiple vertical bar graph depicting the
following data (number of cases in thousands):
Fiscal year: 2002;
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 64.6;
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 304.0;
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear):
28.0;
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 67.4;
Completions: Asylum completions: 86.4;
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 33.1.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 47;
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 262.1;
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear):
18.4;
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 48.5;
Completions: Asylum completions: 90.7;
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 36.8.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 34.2;
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 184.6;
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear):
20.8;
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 25.9;
Completions: Asylum completions: 108.9;
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 43.6.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 32.9;
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 98.4;
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear):
32.8;
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 27.9;
Completions: Asylum completions: 116.5;
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 31.1.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 36.5;
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 55.0;
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear):
28.2;
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 12.0;
Completions: Asylum completions: 76.6;
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 45.4.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Caseload: Asylum receipts: 33.4;
Caseload: Asylum cases pending: 27.1;
Caseload: Other receipts (NACARA and credible and reasonable fear):
15.1;
Caseload: Other cases pending (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 6.5;
Completions: Asylum completions: 56.6;
Completions: Other completions (NACARA and credible and reasonable
fear): 22.3.
Source: GAO analysis of Asylum Division data.
[End of figure]
During this same period, authorized staffing for asylum officers ranged
from a high of 332 officers in 2004 to a low of 291 officers in 2007,
as shown in table 3, although not all asylum officers were considered
available to conduct adjudications. The Asylum Division projects the
number of "available asylum officers" by subtracting from authorized
levels the number of staff designated to conduct overseas refugee
adjudications and security screening and the number it projects will be
unavailable due to activities such as training and leave.[Footnote 82]
During fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Asylum Division reported
available asylum officers ranged from a high of 232 in 2003 to a low of
199 in 2005. It reported 163 officers would be available in 2008. The
Asylum Division may detail asylum officers from one office to another
to assist offices with high caseloads.
Table 3: Authorized and Available Staffing Levels for Asylum Officers,
Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Authorized asylum officers: 293;
Available asylum officers: 215.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Authorized asylum officers: 294;
Available asylum officers: 232.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Authorized asylum officers: 332;
Available asylum officers: 224.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Authorized asylum officers: 303;
Available asylum officers: 199.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Authorized asylum officers: 303;
Available asylum officers: 219.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Authorized asylum officers: 291;
Available asylum officers: 210.
Source: Asylum Division.
[End of table]
EOIR Immigration Court Caseload and Staffing Levels:
Immigration court receipts--that is, newly filed and reopened cases--
totaled about 1.9 million cases during fiscal years 2002 through 2007,
of which 22 percent were asylum, and the rest were other types of
immigration cases. From fiscal years 2002 through fiscal year 2005,
immigration judges' caseload, which includes receipts and all cases
still pending from the prior years, increased annually, but began to
decline in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 14). Completions increased
annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and declined in 2007.
[Footnote 83]
According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR),
immigration caseload is expected to increase by a minimum of 25,000
additional cases by 2008 as a result of current and planned DHS
initiatives, such as the addition of detention facilities and beds and
enhanced anti-smuggling programs.
Figure 14: EOIR Caseload and Completions for Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked multiple vertical bar graph depicting the
following data (number of cases in thousands):
Fiscal year: 2002;
Caseload: All receipts: 290.4;
Caseload: All pending: 151.2;
Completions: All completions: 273.8.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Caseload: All receipts: 299.1;
Caseload: All pending: 168.5;
Completions: All completions: 296.1.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Caseload: All receipts: 299.7;
Caseload: All pending: 171.6;
Completions: All completions: 302.0.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Caseload: All receipts: 370.0;
Caseload: All pending: 169.3;
Completions: All completions: 352.8.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Caseload: All receipts: 351.3;
Caseload: All pending: 186.5;
Completions: All completions: 366.0.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Caseload: All receipts: 334.4;
Caseload: All pending: 171.7;
Completions: All completions: 328.3.
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
As shown in table 4, from fiscal years 2002 through fiscal year 2007,
the number of authorized immigration judges increased from 216 in
fiscal year 2002 to 251 in fiscal year 2007, with the most significant
increase occurring in fiscal year 2007. At the same time, the number of
immigration judges who were on board remained fairly constant, except
for an increase in fiscal year 2006.
Table 4: Authorized and Onboard Staffing Levels for Immigration Judges,
Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Authorized immigration judges: 216;
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 214.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Authorized immigration judges: 223;
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 217.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Authorized immigration judges: 224;
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 215.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Authorized immigration judges: 225;
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 212.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Authorized immigration judges: 230;
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 225.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Authorized immigration judges: 251;
Onboard immigration judges[A]: 216.
Source: EOIR.
[A] Data on onboard immigration judges are as of October 1 of each
fiscal year except for 2003. EOIR was unable to provide October 1 data
for fiscal year 2003 and provided March 2003 data instead.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Evi Rezmovic, Assistant
Director, and Lori Weiss, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment.
Tracey Cross, Foster Kerrison, Maria Mercado, Catherine Kim, Yvette
Gutierrez-Thomas, Jason Campbell, and Alana Miller made significant
contributions to the work. Michele Fejfar, Elizabeth Wood, and Carolyn
Boyce assisted with design, methodology, and data analysis. Lara Kaskie
and Richard Ascarate provided assistance in report preparation, Frances
Cook provided legal support, Tom Jessor provided expertise on
immigration court issues, and Karen Burke and Etana Finkler developed
the report's graphics.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The laws governing asylum protection were first established in
statute with the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-
212, § 201, 94 Stat. 102, 102-06 (1980) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§
1101(a)(42), 1157-1159)). The Refugee Act provided, for the first time,
a U.S. refugee policy that stated that persecuted aliens who are
present in the United States and who meet the definition of a refugee
can apply for asylum protection in the United States. The legal
standard for a refugee and asylee are the same, but noncitizens must
apply for refugee status from outside the United States, and for asylum
status from within the United States. The final regulations for
implementing the Refugee Act of 1980 were issued in 1990.
[2] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant to
the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of
1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for establishing and
maintaining internal control in the federal government. Also pursuant
to FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-123,
revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific requirements for
assessing the reporting on internal controls. Internal control
standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A-123 are
based on GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government.
[3] Of the 189 asylum officers who responded to the survey, 171 said
that, over the past year, they had adjudicated at least some asylum
cases, which is the focus of our review. Similarly, of the 43
supervisory asylum officers who responded to the survey, 40 said that
they had reviewed at least some asylum decisions over the past year.
[4] Of the 160 immigration judges who responded to the survey, 159 said
that they had heard at least some asylum cases over the past year.
[5] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: March
2004).
[6] GAO, Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a Measure
of Judges' Case-Related Workload, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-789T] (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2003).
[7] Asylees can apply for lawful permanent residency 1 year after being
granted asylum.
[8] Certain categories of noncitizens are statutorily ineligible for
asylum even if they can demonstrate past persecution or a fear of
persecution. The following individuals are ineligible to apply for
asylum: (1) those who have been in the United States more than 1 year
without filing for asylum, unless they can demonstrate changed or
extraordinary circumstances; (2) those previously denied asylum unless
they can show changed circumstances; and (3) those who may be removed
to a third country where they would have access to fair asylum
procedures. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). The following are ineligible for a
grant of asylum: (1) persecutors of others and certain criminals; (2)
those who are described in the terrorist grounds of inadmissibility or
are reasonably regarded as a danger to the security of the United
States; and (3) individuals who were firmly resettled in a third
country prior to coming to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).
[9] Asylum applicants, unless otherwise eligible, may not apply for
employment authorization documents until they are granted asylum or
their asylum application has been pending more than 150 days.
Applicants are not eligible for employment authorization documents
until they have been granted asylum or their asylum application has
been pending for more than 180 days.
[10] The Asylum Division can take 180 days to process cases that are
not referred to the immigration courts. According to the Acting Deputy
Chief of the Asylum Division, cases that typically do not meet the
Asylum Division's 75 percent goal are cases that require review by
headquarters or local fraud personnel or cases that require
coordination with other federal agencies.
[11] Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, § 604(a), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-
690 to 94.
[12] Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 302, 303.
[13] Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II, § 203, 111 Stat. 2160, 2196-99
(1997).
[14] The Asylum Division does not receive any direct appropriations for
adjudication of asylum applications. Rather, USCIS collects and uses
fees from the filing of other immigration benefit applications to cover
adjudication costs, including those associated with asylum and refugee
applicants.
[15] The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge is to provide overall
program direction, articulate policies and procedures, and establish
priorities for immigration judges in the immigration courts across the
country.
[16] The asylum officer must determine whether the applicant met the
requirement to file the asylum application within 1 year of his or her
last arrival into the United States and, if not, whether an exception
to that filing requirement applies.
[17] The applicant may include as dependents on the asylum application
his or her spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21 who are
present in the United States. Decisions apply to the applicant and the
applicant's dependents if included on the applicant's asylum
application and the applicant established a qualifying relationship to
them by a preponderance of evidence.
[18] The Asylum Office initiates a proceeding to terminate asylum
status when evidence indicates that one or more grounds for termination
of asylum status may apply. Grounds for termination include cases in
which there is a showing of fraud in the alien's application such that
the applicant was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.
Depending on when the applicant filed for asylum, other grounds for
termination may apply. For applications filed on or after April 1,
1997, asylum may be terminated when conditions described in section
208(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act exist, which include,
for example, the alien no longer meets the definition of a refugee due
to a fundamental change in circumstances or the alien is a persecutor,
danger to the security of the United States, inadmissible under
terrorist grounds, or firmly resettled in another country; or the alien
was convicted of a particularly serious crime or there are serious
reasons to believe the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime
outside the United States. An immigration judge or the BIA may reopen a
case for the purpose of terminating a grant of asylum by the
immigration judge or the BIA upon a motion from DHS.
[19] The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee
Resettlement administers medical and employment assistance programs for
refugees and asylees.
[20] A de novo review means that the immigration judge is to evaluate
the applicant's claim anew, as the determination the asylum officer
made in referring the case to immigration court is not binding on the
immigration judge.
[21] The grant rate is calculated as the percentage of cases that
resulted in a grant divided by the total number of cases that resulted
in a decision (a grant, denial, or referral to an immigration court in
a case in which the applicant was interviewed).
[22] According to the Asylum Division, it completed a large number of
cases during this time period as a result of its plan to eliminate its
backlog. By fiscal year 2007, the Asylum Division's caseload was
approximately the same size as the number of cases completed.
[23] For example, ineligible asylum applicants may qualify for
withholding or deferral of removal if the immigration judge determines
that it is more likely than not that the applicant would be tortured if
removed to the proposed country of removal. However, this form of
relief does not allow the applicant to apply for lawful permanent
residency.
[24] The grant rate is calculated as the percentage of cases that
resulted in a grant out of the total number of cases that resulted in a
decision of a grant or denial.
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G].
[26] To be certified, an asylum officer must demonstrate a fundamental
understanding and knowledge of the principals of asylum adjudications.
Certification includes, but is not limited to, reading all the AOBTC
lesson plans, conducting interviews while being observed, and writing
adjudication assessments. Certification is not a substitute for AOBTC,
but may be used prepare asylum officers to conduct adjudications on a
short-term basis while awaiting a scheduled AOBTC.
[27] When we conducted our survey of supervisory asylum officers during
March through May 2007, 26 supervisors said they had attended the
Supervisory Asylum Officer's Training Course, and 14 said they had not.
According to Asylum Division officials, 13 supervisory asylum officers
attended this training course when it was offered in August 2007, and
they anticipated offering the course again in the first half of fiscal
year 2009.
[28] Percentages for data from relatively small populations, such as
supervisory asylum officers, may convey a level of precision that can
be misleading because they can change greatly with minor changes in the
data. Therefore, throughout this report, we generally identify the
number in addition to the percentage of supervisory asylum officers who
responded to a question in a particular way.
[29] As part of this training validation (required by the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. pt. 1607), a
Critical Task Selection Board, generally comprised of subject matter
experts, a union representative, headquarters staff, and training
academy personnel, selects critical tasks for the asylum officer
position and recommends a training location for these tasks. The Asylum
Division plans to initiate the next validation study in fiscal year
2009.
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[31] According to Asylum Division officials, headquarters personnel
traveled to every Asylum Office to conduct training on the Asylum
Virtual Library in May and June 2008.
[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G].
[33] The Asylum Division asks six open-ended questions about AOBTC such
as "What did you like most about the training?" and "What would you
change about the training?"
[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[35] Supervisory asylum officers' performance work plans also require
that they observe the equivalent of one interview each month conducted
by each asylum officer they supervise.
[36] We recognize that not all asylum officers are in a position to
assess whether supervisory review promoted consistency because, for
example, a newer asylum officer may have worked for only one
supervisor.
[37] In three of the Asylum Offices, QA/T work plans also specified the
number of cases that were to be reviewed.
[38] In three of the Asylum Offices, QA/T work plans specified the
number of interviews to be observed.
[39] Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag,
"Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication," Stanford Law
Review, vol. 60, no. 2 (2007), 295-412.
[40] In addition, we have examined the outcomes of immigration court
decisions in asylum cases. Our analysis of more than 12 years of EOIR
data showed that even after we statistically controlled for the effects
of a number of factors associated with asylum outcomes (e.g.,
applicant‘s nationality, time period of asylum decision,
representation, and immigration judges‘ gender and experience), there
were substantial differences across both immigration courts and
immigration judges in the likelihood of asylum applicants being granted
asylum. (GAO, U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in
Asylum Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges, GAO-08-940,
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 2008))
[41] 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(a)(4) allows the Director of EOIR to designate
immigration judges, retired BIA members, retired immigration judges,
and administrative law judges employed within, or retired from, EOIR to
act as temporary BIA members. These provisions offer a mechanism
through which the department can provide the BIA temporary assistance
to respond to an unanticipated increase or temporary surge in the
number, size, or type of cases, and other short-term circumstances that
might impair the BIA's ability to adjudicate cases in a manner that is
both timely and fair.
[42] In 2006, the Attorney General initiated a review of the quality
and performance of the immigration courts and the BIA. Based on the
results of the review, the Attorney General directed the implementation
of 22 new measures, including the improvement of training for new
immigration judges and the development of a continuing education
program for veteran immigration judges.
[43] Four immigration judges in our survey population were appointed in
September 2006--the same month EOIR implemented changes to its training
for new immigration judges.
[44] For courts where only one immigration judge is assigned,
supervisors are to make arrangements for immigration judges to observe
an immigration judge in a different court.
[45] Assistant Chief Immigration Judges have supervisory authority over
the immigration judges, the court administrators, and judicial law
clerks. They serve as the principal liaison between the Office of the
Chief Immigration Judge and the immigration courts.
[46] The investigation found that fraudulent asylum applications were
routinely prepared for $2,000 or more and that counterfeit Indonesian
documents, such as birth certificates and police reports, often were
provided to support the claims. According to Asylum Division officials,
the Asylum Division was provided evidence from the investigation,
examined cases known to be associated with the fraud ring, and
initiated termination proceedings or other action for cases in which
benefit eligibility may have been affected.
[47] Even when asylum officers identify fraud that is relevant to the
claim, the applicant may still establish eligibility for asylum. In
cases when applicants submit materially false evidence, asylum officers
are instructed to give applicants the opportunity to provide an
explanation. If the applicant provides a reasonable explanation, the
asylum officer must take it into account in assessing the applicant's
credibility. For example, an applicant might explain that he or she
obtained and submitted a fraudulent document to support a story of
persecution, thinking that asylum would not be granted without
documentation to support the claim.
[48] GAO, Border Security: Fraud Risks Complicate State's Ability to
Manage Diversity Visa Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1174] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2007).
[49] FDNS planned to conduct six benefit fraud assessments; three had
been issued as of July 2008.
[50] The Asylum Office initiates a proceeding to terminate asylum
status when evidence indicates, for example, that fraud exists in an
alien's application such that the alien was not eligible for asylum at
the time asylum was granted.
[51] The Asylum Division found that most of these applicants had not
been granted asylum and those granted asylum by the Asylum Division
later had their asylum status terminated after terrorism investigations
uncovered asylum fraud by the applicant. The assessment did not contain
information on whether asylum was terminated for cases granted by
immigration judges.
[52] The Asylum Division stated that some of the vulnerabilities it
identified were outside of its control, such as detaining and removing
applicants denied asylum, which fall under ICE's jurisdiction.
[53] Automated controls preclude a final grant of asylum from being
entered into RAPS until certain security checks have been cleared.
[54] Several security checks are initiated automatically when the
applicant's information is entered into RAPS.
[55] On August 11, 2008, ICE‘s Office of Detention and Removal
Operations deployed a new system”ENFORCE Alien Removal Module”to
replace DACS. Prior to its deployment, the Asylum Division issued
revised procedures for using the system in conducting identity and
security checks, and asylum officers received training on the system.
[56] Asylum officers do not need to obtain fingerprint results before
issuing a denial of asylum or referring a case to the immigration
courts, however, an asylum officer may not issue a grant of asylum
until fingerprint results have cleared.
[57] Delays in receiving FBI name check information has been reported
as a significant problem in immigration benefit programs. According to
the Asylum Division's Deputy Director, such delays had been problematic
for asylum adjudicators, but only in relatively few cases compared with
other immigration benefit types.
[58] USCIS entered into an agreement with the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration Canada in 2003 that permits the United States and
Canada to share asylum-related information on a case-by-case and
systematic basis subject to confidentiality provisions in existing law.
[59] Requests for overseas assistance on specific asylum cases are
directed to USCIS when it has a presence in the requisite location; if
not, requests are directed to State. USCIS's International Operations
Division has 30 field offices that are located in embassies and
consulates in various locations around the world.
[60] In addition to responding to case-specific requests, State issues
annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and International
Religious Freedom Reports, Profiles of Asylum Claims and Country
Conditions, and fraud summary reports.
[61] According to the Chief of FDNS, as of August 2008, ICE and USCIS
were in the final stages of reviewing a new Memorandum of Understanding
that will no longer refer lower-level (single-scope) cases to ICE.
Instead these cases will be worked and tracked by USCIS.
[62] In addition to conducting investigations, ICE also participated in
some coordinated efforts in various local interagency fraud task forces
with USCIS, including 17 multiagency Document and Benefit Fraud Task
Forces led by ICE that were created in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to
detect and prosecute fraud.
[63] GAO, Immigration Benefits: Additional Controls and a Sanctions
Strategy Could Enhance DHS's Ability to Control Benefit Fraud,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-259] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 10, 2006).
[64] There was some variation by office. For example, in five offices,
61 to 87 percent of asylum officers reported needing about 5 hours or
more to complete an asylum case. In the other three offices, 50 to 57
percent of the officers reported that they needed 4 hours or less.
Survey responses did not provide enough information to explain these
differences.
[65] According to Asylum Division officials, beginning with the 2006-
2007 rating cycle, the standard performance work plan for Asylum Office
Directors and Deputy Directors hold these officials accountable for
anti-fraud measures, although each Asylum Office personalizes the work
plans based on its workload.
[66] Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General,
Review of the USCIS Benefit Fraud Referral Process, OIG-08-09, (April
2008).
[67] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
14, 2003).
[68] Asylum officers generally have 4 hours to adjudicate asylum cases
over a 4-day period. Extenuating circumstances for exceeding the 4-day
timeframe include excused leave and other higher-priority
responsibilities.
[69] Caseload includes pending and new receipts for asylum, credible
and reasonable fear, and NACARA cases. An asylum case consists of the
principal applicant and any dependents listed on the asylum
application. This is different than EOIR's definition of a case, which
includes only one individual.
[70] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-789T].
[71] Immigration judges who feel they need more information than is
provided in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices or Profiles
of Asylum Claims may make specific requests on an individual case basis
to State.
[72] An immigration judge who makes a referral to the Fraud and Abuse
Program is not required to delay adjudication of the case.
[73] According to EOIR officials, immigration judges are to schedule
administrative time, or time off the bench, to adjudicate motions,
write reserved opinions, meet with the court administrator, or conduct
legal research. Four hours of administrative time has been the norm
since 1983.
[74] GAO, Executive Office for Immigration Review: Caseload Performance
Reporting Needs Improvement, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-771] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2006).
[75] 8 C.F.R. § 1003.37(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(a) provide that a
decision of the immigration judge may be rendered orally or in writing.
[76] At the third Asylum Office, the Fraud Prevention Coordinator was
not available during the week we visited.
[77] Under certain circumstances, aliens can file an asylum application
directly with an Asylum Office. In such cases, Asylum Office personnel
carry out the responsibilities otherwise conducted by Service Center
personnel.
[78] For decisions that are mailed, asylum officers must submit the
written decision to a supervisory asylum officer within 10 days.
[79] The immigration courts provide interpreters for the hearings when
necessary.
[80] If DHS disagrees with the BIA's ruling, in rare instances, the
case may be referred to the Attorney General for review. The Attorney
General has the authority to overturn the BIA's ruling, and if the
result is adverse to the alien, the alien may appeal to federal court.
DHS may not appeal decisions of the BIA or the Attorney General.
[81] The Asylum Division tracks adjudicated and unadjudicated
completions. Adjudicated completions consist of cases in which an
asylum officer has made a decision after interviewing the applicant and
evaluating the merits of the case. Unadjudicated completions consist of
cases in which no asylum decision was made on the merits of the case.
For the purposes of this report, "completions" refers to both
adjudicated and unadjudicated cases. Pending cases include cases that
were awaiting completion at the beginning of each fiscal year.
[82] The Asylum Division reports that asylum officers will be available
for asylum and NACARA adjudications, credible and reasonable fear
determinations, and asylum terminations of asylum status proceedings
during 41 weeks each year.
[83] Completions include cases that resulted in a decision and other
completions, such as administrative closures and transfers of cases to
other courts.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
