U.S. Asylum System
Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges Gao ID: GAO-08-940 September 25, 2008Each year, tens of thousands of people who have been persecuted or fear persecution in their home countries apply for asylum in the United States. Immigration judges (IJ) from the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) decide whether to grant or deny asylum to aliens in removal proceedings. Those denied asylum may appeal their case to EOIR's Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). GAO was asked to assess the variability of IJ rulings, and the effects of policy changes related to appeals and claims. This report addresses: (1) factors affecting variability in asylum outcomes; (2) EOIR actions to assist applicants and IJs; (3) effects associated with procedural changes at the BIA; and (4) effects of the requirement that asylum seekers apply within 1 year of entering the country. GAO analyzed DOJ asylum data for fiscal years 1995 through mid-2007, visited 5 immigration courts in 3 cities, including those with 3 of the top 4 asylum caseloads; observed asylum hearings; and interviewed key officials. Results of the visits provided additional information but were not projectable.
In the 19 immigration courts that handled almost 90 percent of asylum cases from October 1994 through April 2007, nine factors affected variability in asylum outcomes: (1) filed affirmatively (originally with DHS at his/her own initiative) or defensively (with DOJ, if in removal proceedings); (2) applicant's nationality; (3) time period of the asylum decision; (4) representation; (5) applied within 1 year of entry to the United States; (6) claimed dependents on the application; (7) had ever been detained (defensive cases only); (8) gender of the immigration judge and (9) length of experience as an immigration judge. After statistically controlling for these factors, disparities across immigration courts and judges existed. For example, affirmative applicants in San Francisco were still 12 times more likely than those in Atlanta to be granted asylum. Further, in 14 of 19 immigration courts for affirmative cases, and 13 of 19 for defensive cases, applicants were at least 4 times more likely to be granted asylum if their cases were decided by the judge with the highest versus the lowest likelihood of granting asylum in that court. EOIR expanded its programs designed to assist applicants with obtaining representation and has attempted to improve the capabilities of some IJs. EOIR has conducted two grant rate studies and was using information on IJs with unusually high or low grant rates, together with other indicators of IJ performance, to identify IJs who might benefit from additional training and supervision. However, EOIR lacked the expertise to statistically control for factors that could affect asylum outcomes, and this limited the completeness, accuracy, and usefulness of grant rate information. Without such information, to be used in conjunction with other performance indicators, EOIR's ability to identify IJs who may need additional training and supervision was hindered. EOIR assigned some IJ supervisors to field locations to improve oversight of immigration courts, but EOIR has not determined how many supervisors it needs to effectively supervise IJs and has not provided supervisors with guidance on how to carry out their supervisory role. Following streamlining (procedural changes) at the BIA in March 2002, BIA's appeals backlog decreased, as did the number of decisions favoring asylum seekers. Such decisions were more than 50 percent lower in the 4 years after streamlining compared to 4 years prior. The authority to affirm the IJ's' decisions without writing an opinion was used in 44 percent of BIA's asylum decisions. In June 2008, EOIR proposed regulatory changes to the streamlining rules, but it is too soon to tell how they will affect appeals outcomes. Data limitations prevented GAO from determining the (1) effect of the 1-year rule on fraudulent applications and denials and (2) resources adjudicators have spent addressing related issues. EOIR lacked measures of fraud, data on whether the 1-year rule was the basis for asylum denials, and records of time spent addressing such issues. Congress would need to direct EOIR to develop a cost-effective method of collecting data to determine the effect of the rule.
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-08-940, U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-940
entitled 'U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in Asylum
Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges' which was released on
September 26, 2008.
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:
Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes across Immigration
Courts and Judges:
U.S. Asylum System:
GAO-08-940:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-940, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Each year, tens of thousands of people who have been persecuted or fear
persecution in their home countries apply for asylum in the United
States. Immigration judges (IJ) from the Department of Justice‘s (DOJ)
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) decide whether to grant
or deny asylum to aliens in removal proceedings. Those denied asylum
may appeal their case to EOIR‘s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). GAO
was asked to assess the variability of IJ rulings, and the effects of
policy changes related to appeals and claims. This report addresses:
(1) factors affecting variability in asylum outcomes; (2) EOIR actions
to assist applicants and IJs; (3) effects associated with procedural
changes at the BIA; and (4) effects of the requirement that asylum
seekers apply within 1 year of entering the country. GAO analyzed DOJ
asylum data for fiscal years 1995 through mid-2007, visited 5
immigration courts in 3 cities, including those with 3 of the top 4
asylum caseloads; observed asylum hearings; and interviewed key
officials. Results of the visits provided additional information but
were not projectable.
What GAO Found:
In the 19 immigration courts that handled almost 90 percent of asylum
cases from October 1994 through April 2007, nine factors affected
variability in asylum outcomes: (1) filed affirmatively (originally
with DHS at his/her own initiative) or defensively (with DOJ, if in
removal proceedings); (2) applicant‘s nationality; (3) time period of
the asylum decision; (4) representation; (5) applied within 1 year of
entry to the United States; (6) claimed dependents on the application;
(7) had ever been detained (defensive cases only); (8) gender of the
immigration judge and (9) length of experience as an immigration judge.
After statistically controlling for these factors, disparities across
immigration courts and judges existed. For example, affirmative
applicants in San Francisco were still 12 times more likely than those
in Atlanta to be granted asylum. Further, in 14 of 19 immigration
courts for affirmative cases, and 13 of 19 for defensive cases,
applicants were at least 4 times more likely to be granted asylum if
their cases were decided by the judge with the highest versus the
lowest likelihood of granting asylum in that court.
EOIR expanded its programs designed to assist applicants with obtaining
representation and has attempted to improve the capabilities of some
IJs. EOIR has conducted two grant rate studies and was using
information on IJs with unusually high or low grant rates, together
with other indicators of IJ performance, to identify IJs who might
benefit from additional training and supervision. However, EOIR lacked
the expertise to statistically control for factors that could affect
asylum outcomes, and this limited the completeness, accuracy, and
usefulness of grant rate information. Without such information, to be
used in conjunction with other performance indicators, EOIR‘s ability
to identify IJs who may need additional training and supervision was
hindered. EOIR assigned some IJ supervisors to field locations to
improve oversight of immigration courts, but EOIR has not determined
how many supervisors it needs to effectively supervise IJs and has not
provided supervisors with guidance on how to carry out their
supervisory role.
Following streamlining (procedural changes) at the BIA in March 2002,
BIA‘s appeals backlog decreased, as did the number of decisions
favoring asylum seekers. Such decisions were more than 50 percent lower
in the 4 years after streamlining compared to 4 years prior. The
authority to affirm the IJ‘s‘ decisions without writing an opinion was
used in 44 percent of BIA‘s asylum decisions. In June 2008, EOIR
proposed regulatory changes to the streamlining rules, but it is too
soon to tell how they will affect appeals outcomes.
Data limitations prevented GAO from determining the (1) effect of the 1-
year rule on fraudulent applications and denials and (2) resources
adjudicators have spent addressing related issues. EOIR lacked measures
of fraud, data on whether the 1-year rule was the basis for asylum
denials, and records of time spent addressing such issues. Congress
would need to direct EOIR to develop a cost-effective method of
collecting data to determine the effect of the rule.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that EOIR use GAO‘s findings and examine cost-effective
options for obtaining statistical information on IJs‘ asylum decisions
to help it identify IJs with training and supervision needs; and assess
resources and guidance needed to supervise IJs. DOJ and EOIR agreed
with our recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-940]. For more
information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8777 or
stanar@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Various Factors Were Associated with Differences in the Likelihood of
Being Granted Asylum in Immigration Courts:
EOIR Has Taken Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges in
the Asylum Process, but Some Actions to Identify Immigration Judges
with Training Needs Were Limited, and the Resources and Guidance Needed
to Ensure Effective Supervision Had Not Been Determined:
BIA Streamlining Was Associated with a Reduction in BIA's Backlog and
Fewer Outcomes Favorable to Asylum Seekers:
Data Limitations Precluded Determining the Effects of the 1-Year Rule
and the Resources Expended Adjudicating It:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Factors Affecting Variability in Asylum Outcomes in Immigration Court:
EOIR Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges:
Did the Asylum Backlog and Asylum Outcomes Change Following BIA
Streamlining?
Information on the 1-Year Rule:
Appendix II: Differences in Asylum Grant Rates across Immigration
Courts:
Appendix III: Differences in Asylum Grant Rates across Immigration
Judges:
Logistic Regression Analyses of Grant and Denial Rates for Immigration
Judges from the Same Immigration Courts Handling Asylum Cases from the
Same Countries:
Appendix IV: Prior Research on Factors Affecting Asylum Decisions:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Affirmative Grant Rate for Selected Nationalities in Two
Geographically Proximal Immigration Courts:
Table 2: Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum If Case Was Heard by the
Immigration Judge Most Likely to Grant Asylum, Compared to the
Immigration Judge Least Likely to Grant Asylum, by Immigration Court:
Table 3: BIA Decisions Favoring Asylum Applicants, before and after
March 2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms, by Claimant Characteristics:
Table 4: BIA Asylum Decisions Favoring Alien Made by Three-Member
Panels versus Single Members, Post 2002 Streamlining:
Table 5: Asylum Cases Referred at Least in Part on the 1-Year Rule by
DHS Asylum Officers to Immigration Judges, by Fiscal Year:
Table 6: Variables Used in GAO Analyses of Factors Affecting Asylum
Outcomes:
Table 7: Coding Scheme for BIA Decision Outcomes:
Table 8: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied:
Table 9: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied, by Immigration Court:
Table 10: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied, by Country:
Table 11: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied, by Various Claimant Characteristics:
Table 12: Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Cases Granted and
Denied, by Country and Immigration Court, for Immigration Courts
Deciding 50 or More Cases from the Different Countries:
Table 13: Results of Modeling Affirmative Cases with Absentia Excluded:
Table 14: Results of Modeling Defensive Cases with Absentia Excluded:
Table 15: Odds Ratios and Significance Levels of Differences across
Immigration Courts, for Affirmative Asylum Cases:
Table 16: Odds Ratios and Significance Levels of Differences Across
Immigration Courts, for Defensive Asylum Cases:
Table 17: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50
or More Affirmative Cases in Their Primary Immigration Court:
Table 18: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50
or More Defensive Cases in Their Primary Immigration Court:
Table 19: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50
or More Affirmative Cases in their Primary Immigration Court, by
Immigration Judge Characteristics:
Table 20: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50
or More Defensive Cases in their Primary Immigration Court, by
Immigration Judge Characteristics:
Table 21: Summary of Analyses of Asylum Seekers in Specific
Combinations of Immigration Courts and Countries:
Figures:
Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Proceedings Process:
Figure 2: Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases, by
Immigration Court:
Figure 3: Percentage of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases Granted,
by Nationality:
Figure 4: Asylum Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Applicants,
by Fiscal Year of Immigration Judge Decision:
Figure 5: Immigration Judge Asylum Grant Rates, Affirmative Cases, by
Immigration Court:
Figure 6: Overall BIA Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year:
Figure 7: BIA Asylum Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year:
Figure 8: Number of BIA Asylum Decisions and Average Time from Filing
of Appeal to Decision, by Fiscal Year of BIA Decision:
Figure 9: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, before and after the March
2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms:
Figure 10: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, by Fiscal Year of BIA
Decision:
Figure 11: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating Immigration
Court Differences, with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals, for
Affirmative Cases:
Figure 12: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating Immigration
Court Differences, with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals, for Defensive
Cases:
Figure 13: Immigration Judge Asylum Grant Rates, Defensive Cases, by
Immigration Court:
Abbreviations:
ACIJ: Assistant Chief Immigration Judge:
ANSIR: Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review:
AWO: affirmance without opinion:
BIA: Board of Immigration Appeals:
CAT: United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:
CPDF: Central Personnel Data File:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
EOIR: Executive Office for Immigration Review:
ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
IJ: immigration judge:
LOP: Legal Orientation Program:
NAIJ: National Association of Immigration Judges:
NJC: National Judicial College:
OIL: Office of Immigration Litigation:
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 25, 2008:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman: Chairman:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: United States
Senate:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy: Chairman:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: Chairman:
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees: Committee
on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.:
Chairman:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
Globally, the total number of refugees reached an estimated 11.4
million people at the end of 2007, of whom tens of thousands from over
100 countries came to the United States to apply for asylum. U.S.
immigration law provides that non-citizens 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]
Those who seek to apply for asylum generally go through an affirmative
or defensive asylum process. Affirmative applications are voluntarily
initiated by the applicants themselves, and their cases are reviewed by
an asylum officer from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Affirmative applicants generally receive either a grant, a notice of
intent to deny, or, if they do not have lawful immigration status, a
referral to immigration court for removal proceedings and a second
review of their claim. Defensive applications are filed by applicants
against whom removal proceedings have been initiated, and their cases
are presented to an immigration judge from the Department of Justice's
(DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The accuracy of
an asylum decision is critical because of the decision's potential
impact on the safety of the asylum seeker and the security of our
nation.[Footnote 2] An incorrect denial may result in an applicant
being returned to a country where he or she had been persecuted or
where future persecution might occur. At the other extreme, an
incorrect approval of an asylum application may allow a terrorist to
remain in the United States, a concern that was heightened by the
attacks of September 11, 2001.
Given the potential consequences of asylum decisions, it is important
to ensure that the asylum system is not misused and that asylum
decisions are being made consistently and fairly. Among other things,
the REAL ID Act of 2005 was a legislative effort to provide consistent
standards for adjudicating asylum applications and to limit
fraud.[Footnote 3] Several recently published reports have documented
the existence of wide disparities in asylum decisions within and across
particular asylum offices and immigration courts for cases brought by
applicants from the same nationalities and during the same general time
periods.[Footnote 4] These reports have raised concerns that
adjudicators may not be evaluating asylum claims in a consistent or
fair manner.
Concerns have also been raised by Congress and immigration advocates
about the effects of various policy changes intended to expedite asylum
appeals and reduce fraudulent asylum claims. In 2002, DOJ attempted to
address a large backlog of asylum appeals at EOIR's Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) by streamlining certain appeals procedures
with the goal of improving timeliness and efficiency. This has prompted
questions about whether streamlined procedures have affected the
ability of applicants appealing immigration judges' decisions to get a
fair hearing and to obtain a well-reasoned opinion from the
BIA.[Footnote 5] Further, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 included a provision requiring asylum
seekers to apply within the first year of entering the
country.[Footnote 6] While the 1 year requirement was intended to
discourage asylum fraud, Congress and other stakeholders have raised
questions about whether the resources expended on adjudicating the rule
outweigh its effectiveness in deterring fraud, and about the numbers of
people who were persecuted or tortured who may be denied the benefits
of asylum because of the rule.[Footnote 7] In response to your interest
in these issues, this report addresses the following objectives:
* What factors have affected variability in asylum outcomes in EOIR's
immigration courts?
* What actions has EOIR taken to assist applicants in obtaining
representation and immigration judges in rendering asylum decisions,
and how, if at all, could they be improved?
* What changes in asylum backlogs and outcomes occurred following the
streamlining of appeals procedures at the BIA?
* What information exists on the effects of the 1-year rule on reducing
fraudulent asylum applications and preventing applicants from being
granted asylum, and what resources have been expended in adjudicating
it?
To address the first objective, we analyzed data from EOIR on all
decisions rendered by immigration judges from October 1, 1994, through
April 30, 2007, that involved asylum seekers from the 20 countries that
produced the most asylum cases and the 19 immigration courts that
handled the largest numbers of asylum cases. Each of the 20 countries
and 19 immigration courts contributed a minimum of 800 affirmative and
800 defensive asylum cases to our analyses. The combination of
countries and immigration courts yielded more than 198,000 cases for
our analyses and constituted 66 percent of all asylum cases decided
during the 12 ½ year period. We used EOIR's case management database to
identify immigration court proceedings where an immigration judge had
made a decision to grant or deny an applicant's asylum claim. We
statistically controlled for the effects of a number of asylum
applicant and immigration judge characteristics that were potentially
related to asylum outcomes in order to determine whether the likelihood
that an immigration judge would grant or deny an asylum application
could be statistically attributed to those characteristics. In
examining potential differences in asylum outcomes across immigration
courts, we analyzed the following seven factors available in the EOIR
immigration court proceedings data: (1) filed affirmatively or
defensively; (2) the nationality of the applicant; (3) the time period
in which the asylum decision was made; (4) whether the applicant had
representation; (5) filed the application within 1 year of entry to the
United States; (6) claimed dependents on the asylum application; and
(7) had ever been detained (defensive cases only). In examining
potential differences in asylum decisions across immigration judges, we
analyzed an additional nine factors available from EOIR immigration
court proceedings and biographical data, and the Office of Personnel
Management's Central Personnel Data File. These included immigration
judges' (1) age, (2) caseload size, (3) gender, (4) length of
experience as an immigration judge, (5) race/ethnicity, (6) veteran
status, (7) prior government immigration experience, (8) prior
experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization, and (9)
the presidential administration under which the judges were
appointed.[Footnote 8] Our analyses did not control for factors related
to the merits of asylum claims because such data were not available.
Further, our findings on asylum outcomes cannot be generalized beyond
the 20 countries and 19 immigration courts included in our analysis. We
assessed the reliability of the data used in our analyses through
electronic testing, analyzing related database documentation, and
working with agency officials to reconcile discrepancies between the
data and documentation that we received. We found the data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also interviewed officials from EOIR's Office of the Chief
Immigration Judge and visited five immigration courts in three cities
containing three of the four immigration courts with the highest asylum
caseloads. At these immigration courts, we interviewed immigration
judges with varying asylum grant rates, court administrators, DHS trial
attorneys with varying levels of experience handling cases in the
immigration courts, members of the private bar who represented asylum
applicants in immigration court, and immigration advocates and pro bono
legal providers. We also observed proceedings at each immigration
court, including hearings on asylum cases, to enhance our understanding
of the role of immigration judges. Because we selected nonprobability
samples of immigration courts and stakeholders associated with these
immigration courts, the information we obtained at these locations may
not be generalized either within the immigration courts or to all
immigration courts nationwide. However, the information we obtained at
these locations provided us with a perspective on circumstances
associated with asylum proceedings.
For the second objective, we reviewed the Attorney General's 2006
reforms directed to the immigration courts and information from EOIR
regarding its implementation of the reforms. Regarding initiatives
designed to assist applicants, we reviewed agency guidance on
facilitating pro bono programs and evaluation reports on EOIR's Legal
Orientation and BIA's pro bono programs. We also interviewed the EOIR
official responsible for coordinating these programs. Regarding actions
to assist immigration judges in adjudicating asylum cases, we reviewed
agency guidance regarding processing asylum cases and preparing
decisions and orders, training materials for immigration judges, and
the legal examination administered to new immigration judges. We also
interviewed EOIR's Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJ) for
Conduct and Professionalism and for Training, and cognizant officials
knowledgeable about EOIR's studies of immigration judge grant rates.
For the third objective, regarding changes in the asylum backlog and
asylum outcomes following the streamlining of adjudication procedures
at the BIA, we obtained and analyzed data from EOIR on the size of the
pending asylum appeals caseload at the BIA for fiscal years 1995
through 2007, and the results of the BIA's decisions on appeals from
immigration judge decisions for the period from October 1, 1997,
through September 30, 2006. We assessed the reliability of the data
used in our analyses by performing electronic testing, analyzing
related database documentation, and working with agency officials to
reconcile any discrepancies in the data and found the data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We did not use
EOIR data on the number of board members at the BIA who were involved
in deciding asylum appeals prior to fiscal year 2004 because of
concerns regarding the reliability of the field in those years. We also
interviewed federal circuit court judges in the two circuits handling
the largest number of petitions for review of BIA decisions (the 2nd
and 9th Circuits), and officials in DOJ's Office of Immigration
Litigation (OIL) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York who defend the Department of Justice in appeals of
BIA decisions to the federal courts.
Regarding the fourth objective, we reviewed the applicable law and
regulations and discussed their impact on agency resources and
applicants with the same immigration judges, attorneys, and members of
advocacy groups whom we had selected to interview regarding our first
objective. We also added questions about immigration judges' views of
the 1-year rule to a Web-based survey of immigration judges that was
being conducted as part of another GAO review, and obtained a 77
percent response rate.
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 I contains more details about our data analysis, survey, and
site visit methodology.
Results in Brief:
The likelihood of being granted asylum varied considerably across
immigration courts and judges, and nine factors, out of a total of 16
factors analyzed, had statistically significant effects on the
variability of asylum outcomes.[Footnote 9] Across the 19 large
immigration courts in our review, seven factors significantly affected
outcomes during the period October 1994 through April 2007: (1) filed
affirmatively or defensively;[Footnote 10] (2) applicant's nationality;
(3) the time period in which the asylum decision was made; and whether
the applicant (4) had representation, (5) filed the application within
1 year of entry to the United States, (6) claimed dependents on the
asylum application, and (7) had ever been detained (defensive cases
only).[Footnote 11] Across immigration judges within these immigration
courts, these same seven factors, plus the following additional two
factors, had statistically significant effects on variability in asylum
outcomes: (1) the gender of the immigration judge and (2) the length of
experience as an immigration judge. We did not determine the extent to
which the underlying facts or merits of the case affected differences
in asylum outcomes, as EOIR did not have data on such factors. As an
example of differences in asylum outcomes across immigration courts,
affirmative applicants in the San Francisco immigration court were 12
times more likely to be granted asylum than affirmative applicants in
the Atlanta immigration court, even after we controlled for the
statistically significant effects of applicants' nationality, time
period of the decision, representation, filing within 1 year of entry,
and claiming dependents. The likelihood of being granted asylum
increased significantly for both affirmative and defensive applicants
who had representation, applied for asylum since fiscal year 2001,
filed the application within 1 year of entry, and claimed dependents on
the asylum application. Representation generally doubled the likelihood
that immigration judges would grant asylum to affirmative and defensive
asylum applicants compared to those without representation, after
statistical controls were applied. In contrast, defensive applicants
who had ever been detained were about two-thirds as likely to be
granted asylum as those who had not been detained, after statistical
controls were applied. In the New York City immigration court--which
handles the largest number of asylum cases in the country--the
likelihood of an affirmative applicant being granted asylum was 420
times greater if the applicant's case was decided by the immigration
judge who had the highest likelihood of granting asylum than if the
applicant's case was decided by the immigration judge who had the
lowest likelihood in that immigration court. In 14 out of 19
immigration courts for affirmative cases, and 13 of 19 immigration
courts for defensive cases, applicants were at least 4 times as likely
to be granted asylum if their cases were decided by the immigration
judge with the highest versus the lowest likelihood of granting in that
immigration court. We found that male immigration judges were 60
percent as likely as female immigration judges to grant asylum. In
contrast, immigration judge characteristics such as age, race/
ethnicity, veteran status, prior government immigration experience,
prior experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization,
caseload size, and the presidential administration under which they
were appointed were not statistically significantly associated with the
likelihood of being granted asylum.
EOIR has taken a number of actions to improve its assistance to aliens
in obtaining legal representation, such as expanding programs to help
them access counsel, and EOIR has also sought to identify and improve
the skills of immigration judges needing additional training or
supervision; however, EOIR's actions in identifying and supervising
immigration judges who may benefit from supplemental efforts to improve
their performance could be improved. In 2006, partially in response to
a directive from the Attorney General that EOIR identify judges in need
of additional training or supervision, EOIR conducted a review of
immigration judges' rates of granting asylum. EOIR updated its review
in 2008. However, EOIR's grant rate studies did not take into account
available data on the characteristics of asylum seekers (such as
nationality and representation) and immigration judges (such as gender
and length of experience) that could be statistically related to
immigration judges' decisions to grant or deny asylum. The relationship
between these characteristics (factors) and variability in asylum
decisions by immigration judges across and within immigration courts
can be determined using a multivariate statistical analysis. While
generally accepted statistical practices include the use of
multivariate analyses to statistically control for various factors that
may affect outcomes when data on such factors are available, EOIR's
studies did not statistically control for such factors, in part,
because as EOIR acknowledges, it does not have a trained statistician
on staff who could analyze its data using such sophisticated
statistical controls. Furthermore, EOIR officials stated that they did
not have the funding available to contract for such expertise. While we
recognize that EOIR lacks the expertise to statistically control for
such factors, without doing so, the completeness, accuracy and
usefulness of the information obtained from its grant rate reviews will
be limited, and EOIR will be hindered in its efforts to identify
immigration judges whose that require additional training and
supervision.
EOIR said it was using information on which immigration judges had
unusually high or low asylum grant rates, in conjunction with other
indicators of performance, such as high reversal rate for legal error,
to identify immigration judges in need of greater supervision. EOIR
also said it was improving training for all immigration judges and
developing a directory listing immigration judges' areas of expertise
so judges could share best practices. Further, according to EOIR, from
September 2006 through May 2008, 14 immigration judges were referred
for additional or ameliorative training, of whom 6 were referred for
additional legal training. EOIR said that it relied on immigration
judges' supervisors, the Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJs), to
identify immigration judges who could benefit from mentoring, training,
and observing their peers adjudicating cases. However, as of August
2008, EOIR had six ACIJs in field locations who, in addition to
handling their own caseload of immigration cases, supervised 148
immigration judges in 32 different immigration courts. EOIR had four
ACIJs in EOIR headquarters who, in addition to handling administrative
matters, supervised 68 immigration judges in 22 different immigration
courts. EOIR did not provide these supervisors explicit guidance on how
they should carry out their supervisory responsibilities--for example,
on how they are to use information on immigration judges' asylum grant
rates in combination with other performance information they may
collect to improve immigration judges' performance. Internal control
standards require federal agencies to design controls to assure that
continuous supervision occurs to help ensure the effective management
of the workforce. However, EOIR has not determined how many ACIJs it
needs to effectively supervise immigration judges, and it has not
provided ACIJs with guidance on how to carry out their supervisory
role. Doing so would put EOIR in a better position to monitor
immigration judges' performance and take appropriate action to correct
or prevent immigration judges' performance issues that may arise.
Following BIA's March 2002 streamlining procedures, BIA's backlog of
asylum appeals decreased, as did the number of BIA decisions favoring
the alien. BIA's backlog of asylum appeals began to decrease in the
fiscal year that the streamlining began and reached its lowest level in
13 years in fiscal year 2007, at about 18,700 pending appeals. In
addition, BIA decisions favoring the alien were almost 50 percent lower
(declining from 21 percent to 10 percent) in the 4 ½ years following
the 2002 streamlining compared with the 4 ½ years preceding it.
Further, the percentage of BIA decisions in which asylum applicants
were allowed to depart the United States voluntarily at their own
expense (voluntary departure) rather than being removed by immigration
enforcement personnel decreased from 25 percent to 17 percent, while
the percentage of BIA decisions sustaining an appeal of an asylum grant
by DHS or dismissing an applicant's appeal of an asylum denial remained
the same at about 27 percent. At the same time, following the 2002
streamlining, BIA Board members used their new authority to affirm the
immigration judge's asylum decision without writing an opinion in 44
percent of the asylum cases reviewed between March 14, 2002, and
October 1, 2006, with 77 percent of these cases resulting in removal
orders against the asylum applicant. The decrease in the percentage of
BIA asylum decisions favoring the alien following the March 2002
streamlining occurred in both affirmative and defensive cases, and the
decreases were significantly greater for those who applied defensively.
Further, defensive asylum applicants who did not have representation
experienced greater decreases in favorable asylum outcomes at the BIA
than those with representation, and defensive applicants who were not
detained experienced greater decreases in favorable outcomes than those
who were detained. When BIA appeals were decided by a three-member
panel, 52 percent of the decisions during fiscal years 2004 through
2006 favored the alien; when BIA appeals were decided by a single BIA
member, 7 percent of the decisions favored the alien.
Data limitations prevented us from determining the effectiveness of the
1-year rule in reducing fraudulent applications and preventing
applicants from being granted asylum, as well as the amount of
resources that asylum officers, immigration judges, and DHS attorneys
have spent addressing issues related to the rule. We could not
determine the effectiveness of the 1-year rule in reducing fraudulent
applications primarily because measures of deterring fraudulent
behavior and reliable data on the presence of fraud are not available.
We could not determine the number of asylum applications denied solely
because of the 1-year rule because EOIR data do not identify how many
of the asylum cases decided by immigration judges involved 1-year rule
adjudications. According to agency officials, EOIR's mission of fair
and prompt adjudication of immigration proceedings has not required its
staff to track data on the legal basis for the decision. Agency
officials stated that changes in its administrative processing and data
tracking systems in order to gather prospective data on the impact of
the 1-year rule would involve some cost to the agency, with the risk
that such data may not provide definitive results, since in many cases
the immigration judge's ruling may have multiple legal bases. DHS
maintains data on cases referred to immigration court because of the 1-
year rule, but data were not available to determine if the case could
also have been referred for other reasons. Without such data, we cannot
determine the number of asylum applications denied solely because of
the 1-year rule. We could not determine the amount of resources spent
adjudicating the 1-year rule because DHS and DOJ do not maintain
records on how much time asylum officers, immigration judges, and DHS
attorneys spend addressing issues related to the 1-year rule.
To help EOIR develop more complete, accurate, and useful information on
immigration judges whose asylum decisions are highly discrepant from
those of their peers and to facilitate EOIR's goal of identifying
immigration judges who may benefit from supplemental performance
improvement and supervision efforts, we are making three
recommendations. We are recommending that EOIR use the information we
generated in our analyses, which statistically controlled for a number
of claimant and immigration judge characteristics that could have
affected asylum outcomes, to help identify immigration judges who may
benefit from additional assistance such as supervision and training. We
are also recommending that EOIR explore options for acquiring the
statistical expertise needed to perform periodic multivariate analyses
of asylum decisions. Finally, we are recommending that EOIR develop a
plan for supervisory immigration judges, to include an assessment of
the resources and guidance needed to ensure that immigration judges
receive effective supervision.
DOJ and EOIR agreed with our recommendations.
Background:
Asylum is a form of humanitarian protection that provides refuge for
individuals who are unable or unwilling to return to their home
countries because they were persecuted or have a well-founded fear of
persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion.[Footnote 12] It is an
immigration benefit that enables such individuals to remain in the
United States and apply for lawful permanent residence 1 year after
receiving the grant of asylum. Responsibility for adjudicating asylum
applications is shared between U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services
(USCIS) in DHS and EOIR in DOJ. Asylum officers in 8 USCIS Asylum
Offices and immigration judges in 54 immigration courts within EOIR's
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge adjudicate asylum and other
cases. In fiscal year 2008, the Asylum Division received about $61
million from USCIS fee-based funding and EOIR received about $238
million from congressional appropriations for its entire operation, of
which asylum adjudications are part.[Footnote 13]
There are two main avenues for applying for asylum in the United
States:
Affirmative asylum process: DHS's asylum adjudication process involves
affirmative asylum claims--that is, claims that are made at the
initiative of aliens who are in the country either legally or illegally
and who file directly with USCIS. Asylum officers are to conduct non-
adversarial interviews in which they verify the applicant's identity,
determine whether the applicant is eligible for asylum, and evaluate
the credibility of the applicant's asylum claim. The asylum officer may
(1) grant asylum, (2) deny asylum to applicants who are in legal status
and issue a Notice of Intent to Deny, or (3) refer applicants not in
legal status to the immigration court for a de novo review of their
claim by an immigration judge.[Footnote 14] Upon referral to the
immigration court, the applicant is placed in removal proceedings.
Defensive asylum process: Defensive claims are those that are first
filed after removal proceedings have been initiated against an alien.
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 being in the United States illegally, or
identified as deportable on one or more grounds, such as certain kinds
of criminal convictions.
Immigration judges hear affirmative asylum claims referred to them by
asylum officers, as well as defensive claims first raised before them.
Adjudication of asylum claims in immigration court is adversarial in
that aliens appear before EOIR immigration judges to defend themselves
from removal from the United States. Immigration judges hear testimony
given during direct and cross-examinations and review the evidence
submitted. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Chief
Counsels (also known as ICE trial attorneys) represent DHS in these
proceedings. Figure 1 illustrates the steps involved in the immigration
proceedings process for affirmative and defensive claims.
Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Proceedings Process:
This figure is a chart showing the steps of the immigration proceedings
process.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of USCIS and EQIR data.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 1, EOIR's asylum process generally consists of the
following steps. The applicant is to appear before an immigration judge
for an initial, or master calendar, hearing, during which the
immigration judge is to, among other things, (a) ensure that the
applicant understands the contents of the charging document, or Notice
to Appear, (b) provide the applicant with 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 and
requests for other alternative forms of relief from persecution or
torture, including withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).[Footnote 15] Prior to the merits
hearing, both the ICE trial attorney and the applicant or his or her
representative must submit applications, exhibits, motions, a witness
list, and criminal history to the immigration court. At the merits
hearing, where EOIR is to provide interpreters when necessary, parties
present the case before the immigration judge by generally making
opening statements, presenting witnesses who are subject to cross
examination and evidence to the immigration judge, and making closing
statements. The immigration judge may participate in the questioning of
the applicant and other witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the
immigration judge generally issues an oral decision that should include
a statement of facts that were found to be true, the substantive law
and the application of the law to the facts, what factors were
considered, and what weight was given to the evidence presented
(including the credibility of witnesses).
EOIR's asylum adjudication process can result in one of the following
outcomes for applicants and their qualifying dependents:
Grant of asylum: Immigration judges may grant asylum to applicants,
enabling them to remain in the United States indefinitely, unless DOJ
terminates asylum. Asylees are eligible to apply for certain benefits,
such as an Employment Authorization Document, a Social Security card,
medical and employment assistance, lawful permanent residence, and
ultimately citizenship. Within 2 years of being granted asylum, asylees
can also petition for a spouse or child to obtain derivative asylum
status.
Denial of asylum: Immigration judges may deny asylum to applicants and
order them to be removed from the United States unless they qualify for
another form of relief, s such as withholding or deferral of removal.
However, these other forms of relief do not include all of the benefits
of asylum, such as the ability to apply for permanent resident status
and bring family members to the United States. In some cases, in lieu
of an order of removal, immigration judges may grant voluntary
departure.[Footnote 16]
Case closure: Immigration judges may close a case without making a
decision on the asylum application if, for example, applicants request
moving their case from one immigration court to another or withdraw or
abandon their application for asylum .
If either the applicant or ICE disagrees with the immigration judge's
decision, either party may appeal the decision to the BIA within 30
days. The BIA is the highest administrative adjudicatory body for
immigration decisions within DOJ, and its members hear appeals of
decisions rendered by immigration judges and by DHS District Directors
in a wide variety of proceedings.[Footnote 17] If the BIA's decision is
adverse to the applicant, he or she may, within 30 days of the
decision, file a petition for review of the decision in the U.S. Court
of Appeals with jurisdiction over the immigration court in which the
decision was made.[Footnote 18]
EOIR's Asylum Caseload and Staffing:
EOIR's immigration courts received 1.9 million new cases during fiscal
years 2002 through 2007, of which 19 percent were asylum
cases.[Footnote 19] The number of authorized immigration judges
increased from 216 in fiscal year 2002, to 251 in fiscal year
2007.[Footnote 20] During fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the BIA
received 217,162 appeals of immigration judge decisions, of which 64
percent were appeals by applicants or by DHS in cases where an asylum
application had been filed with the immigration court.
Hiring of Immigration Judges:
Immigration judges are attorneys appointed under Schedule A of the
excepted service who are managed by EOIR.[Footnote 21] According to
EOIR, three processes have been used to hire immigration judges: (1)
The Attorney General directly appointed the immigration judge, or
directed the appointment without a recommendation by EOIR;[Footnote 22]
(2) the immigration judge was appointed after directly responding to an
announcement for an immigration judge position and submitting the
appropriate documentation; or (3) EOIR identified a need and vacancies
were filled from EOIR personnel or sitting immigration judges who
requested and obtained transfers. Except for direct appointment by the
Attorney General, to be considered for the position of immigration
judge, an applicant must meet certain minimal qualifications, and DOJ
considers a range of other selection factors in making a hiring
decision.[Footnote 23]
According to EOIR, from October 1993 through October 2007, three
sitting Attorneys General directly appointed 26 immigration judges--19
were directly appointed by Alberto Gonzales, 4 by John Ashcroft, and 3
by Janet Reno. These three Attorneys General also appointed 181
immigration judges pursuant to an open announcement in which applicants
competed for a vacant immigration judge position. An additional eight
EOIR personnel who were not originally hired as immigration judges were
identified by EOIR to fill immigration judge vacancies on EOIR's
recommendation.
Immigration Judge Training:
According to EOIR, since 1997, training for newly hired immigration
judges has included attendance at a weeklong basic training session at
the National Judicial College (NJC). The NJC training has included
courses on immigration court procedure, immigration law, ethics,
caseload management, and stress management. The training is delivered
in a workshop format, and incorporates lecture instruction, small group
exercises, and immigration court hearing demonstrations. In addition to
this training, immigration judges complete 2 weeks of observations in
their home immigration court and 2 weeks of observations and holding
hearings in a training immigration court. According to EOIR, new
immigration judges are also assigned mentors in both their home and
observation immigration courts to guide their learning during the
training. They are to remain their mentors throughout the probationary
period. As of December 31, 2006, all newly appointed immigration judges
have been required to pass an examination testing familiarity with key
principles of immigration law and complete a set of mock-hearing and
oral decision exercises before beginning to adjudicate matters.
For both new and veteran immigration judges, EOIR has convened an
annual training conference, which includes lectures and presentations
covering topics such as immigration law and procedure, ethics,
religious freedom, disparities in asylum adjudications, and forensic
analysis. Because of budget constraints, a virtual conference that
included recorded presentations was offered in place of the in-person
conference in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2008.
Additionally, according to EOIR, immigration judges have access to a
variety of reference tools such as the Immigration Judge Benchbook,
which includes information on substantive law, sample decisions, and
forms; and EOIR's virtual law library, which has current publications
and reference documents on immigration law, immigration procedure,
international law, and country conditions and provides case summaries
distributed electronically on a weekly basis. In October 2007, EOIR
launched the Immigration Law Advisor that provides a monthly analysis
of statutory, regulatory, and case law developments.
Free Legal Services Available to Aliens in Removal Proceedings:
Under U.S. immigration law, aliens in removal proceedings may be
represented by an attorney at no expense to the government.[Footnote
24] Aliens must either find and pay for counsel or secure free
representation. Since April 2003, EOIR has administered the Legal
Orientation Program (LOP), a court-based legal education program for
detained non-citizens in immigration court proceedings.
The LOP seeks to educate detained persons in removal proceedings so
they can make more informed decisions, thus increasing efficiencies in
the immigration court and detention processes. The program offers
individual and group orientation sessions; self-help workshops, and
referrals to pro bono attorneys. In fiscal year 2008, $3.8 million was
authorized for the program, and LOP presentations were offered at 12
sites. In May 2008, the Vera Institute of Justice reported that
participation in the LOP was associated with faster immigration court
processing times for aliens who were detained and more favorable case
outcomes for aliens who represented themselves in removal
hearings.[Footnote 25]
EOIR's BIA Pro Bono Project assists several nongovernment organizations
in their efforts to link volunteer legal representatives nationwide
with aliens, most of whom are detained, who have immigration cases on
appeal to the BIA and cannot afford legal representation. The project
seeks to remove traditional obstacles private attorneys face in
identifying, locating, and communicating with unrepresented aliens by
providing EOIR case tracking and summary information to facilitate the
initial contact.
EOIR also maintains a list of organizations and attorneys deemed
qualified to provide free legal services to indigent individuals. EOIR
is required by regulation to update the list not less than quarterly
and to provide the list to all aliens in immigration proceedings.
BIA Procedures were Streamlined to Address an Increasing Backlog of
Appeals:
Historically, with a few exceptions, the BIA adjudicated its appeals in
panels of three BIA members, which generally issued full written
decisions explaining the order in each case. Because of an increasing
number of appeals filed with the BIA and an increasing backlog of
pending cases, DOJ began in 1999 to implement procedural changes at the
BIA to better manage its docket. These regulatory changes, referred to
as "streamlining" or "restructuring," occurred in phases. Changes
starting in October 1999 and continuing through February 2002
authorized single Board members to affirm an immigration judge's
decision (in certain categories of cases other than asylum appeals)
without writing an opinion (referred to as "affirmances without
opinion," or AWO orders).[Footnote 26] On March 15, 2002, the Chairman
of the BIA authorized cases involving appeals of asylum cases,
withholding, and CAT applications to be decided by single members using
affirmances without opinion (AWO). Until then, these matters had been
handled by panels of three BIA members, and the panels had issued full
written decisions explaining their reasoning. The Attorney General
issued a final rule on August 26, 2002, that codified these changes in
regulation and made other changes to BIA's structure and
procedures.[Footnote 27] For all cases before the BIA, including asylum
cases, the rule made single member decisions the default procedure.
The rule gave greater deference to immigration judges' factual
findings, changing the standard of BIA review from de novo to "clearly
erroneous" for questions of fact, though not for questions of law or
discretion; set deadlines for the completion of cases; and reduced the
size of the BIA from its authorized 23 members to 11 members. According
to DOJ, the incremental increases in the size of the BIA from 5 members
in 1995 to 23 authorized members in 2002 had had no appreciable impact
on the BIA's ability to decide appeals, the backlog had continued to
increase, and the BIA had grown too large and unwieldy to reach
consensus on individual cases and resolve complex legal questions
effectively.
According to DOJ, the regulation was intended, at least in part, to
improve the timeliness and efficiency of BIA's review. Specifically,
the Attorney General stressed four objectives: (1) eliminate the
current backlog of pending cases, (2) eliminate unwarranted delays in
the adjudication of administrative appeals, (3) utilize BIA resources
more efficiently, and (4) allow more resources for difficult or
controversial cases that may warrant the issuance of precedent
decisions.
Asylum Applicants Must File for Asylum within 1 Year of Entry:
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 and its implementing regulations, individuals seeking asylum
after April 1, 1998, are generally required to apply within the first
year of entering the United States. Specifically, the applicant must
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence during an interview with
an asylum officer or during a removal proceeding in front of an
immigration judge that the application has been filed within 1 year
after the date of the applicant's last arrival in the country.[Footnote
28] The time limit or "1-year rule" was intended to minimize fraudulent
asylum applications and to encourage applicants who have illegally
entered the country to present themselves without delay to the
authorities.
The statute allows exceptions to the 1-year rule to the extent the
applicant demonstrates changed circumstances materially affecting
eligibility or extraordinary circumstances relating to the filing
delay. Changed circumstances generally include changes in conditions in
the applicant's country of nationality, changes in the applicant's
circumstances, including changes in applicable law or changes in
dependency status. Extraordinary circumstances affecting the filing
delay may include serious illness or mental or physical disability,
including any effects of persecution or violent harm suffered in the
past; legal disability, such as for those applicants who are
unaccompanied minors; ineffective assistance of counsel; or death or
serious illness or incapacity of the applicant's legal representative,
among a nonexhaustive list specified in the regulations.[Footnote 29]
Applicants who cannot demonstrate that their application was filed
within 1 year after arrival in the United States and are not eligible
for an exception to the bar, may be eligible for relief from
persecution through withholding of removal because of persecution or
withholding or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
However, as discussed earlier, the standard of proof for withholding
and CAT is higher than for asylum, and the benefits are more limited.
Various Factors Were Associated with Differences in the Likelihood of
Being Granted Asylum in Immigration Courts:
The likelihood of being granted asylum varied considerably across and
within the 19 large immigration courts included in our review.[Footnote
30] Of 16 asylum applicant and immigration judge characteristics that
we examined in a series of bivariate and multivariate statistical
analyses, 9 factors had statistically significant effects on asylum
applicants' likelihood of being granted asylum. Across immigration
courts, seven factors significantly affected asylum outcomes: (1)
whether the asylum application was first filed affirmatively with DHS's
asylum office or defensively with DOJ/EOIR's immigration court; (2) the
nationality of the applicant; (3) the time period in which the asylum
decision was made; (4) whether the applicant had representation; (5)
filed the application within 1 year of entry to the United States; (6)
claimed dependents on the asylum application; and (7) had ever been
detained (defensive cases only). Across immigration judges, in addition
to these seven factors, two other factors significantly affected asylum
outcomes: (1) the gender of the immigration judge and (2) the length of
experience as an immigration judge.[Footnote 31] The seven factors that
did not significantly affect applicants' likelihood of being granted
asylum were the following characteristics of immigration judges: (1)
age, (2) caseload size, (3) race/ethnicity, (4) veteran status, (5)
prior government immigration experience, (6) prior experience doing
immigration work for a nonprofit organization, and (7) the presidential
administration under which the judges were appointed.
Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Varied across Immigration Courts:
Differences in Grant Rates Were Sizable across Immigration Courts:
The likelihood of being granted asylum differed for affirmative and
defensive cases and varied depending on the immigration court in which
the case was heard. Overall, the grant rate for affirmative cases (37
percent) was significantly higher than the grant rate for defensive
cases (26 percent).[Footnote 32] The affirmative asylum grant rate
ranged from 6 percent in Atlanta to 54 percent in New York City. The
grant rate for defensive cases ranged from 7 percent in Atlanta to 35
percent in San Francisco and New York City. (See fig. 2 and a detailed
discussion of these differences in appendix II).
Figure 2: Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases, by
Immigration Court:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing grant rates for
affirmative and defensive asylum cases, by immigration court. The X
axis represents the court, and the Y axis represents the percent. The
lighter shaded bars represent defensive granted, and the darker shaded
bars represent affirmative granted.
Court: Arlington;
Affirmative granted: 31.4;
Defensive granted: 27.8.
Court: Atlanta;
Affirmative granted: 6.1;
Defensive granted: 7.1.
Court: Baltimore;
Affirmative granted: 47.5;
Defensive granted: 32.9.
Court: Bloomington;
Affirmative granted: 27;
Defensive granted: 18.5.
Court: Boston;
Affirmative granted: 30;
Defensive granted: 21.4.
Court: Chicago;
Affirmative granted: 35.1;
Defensive granted: 26.9.
Court: Dallas;
Affirmative granted: 45;
Defensive granted: 22.8.
Court: Denver;
Affirmative granted: 33.6;
Defensive granted: 17.8.
Court: Detroit;
Affirmative granted: 20.7;
Defensive granted: 14.2.
Court: Houston;
Affirmative granted: 24.3;
Defensive granted: 10.3.
Court: Los Angeles;
Affirmative granted: 26.6;
Defensive granted: 18.4.
Court: Miami;
Affirmative granted: 19.1;
Defensive granted: 13.7.
Court: New York;
Affirmative granted: 54.4;
Defensive granted: 35.4.
Court: Newark;
Affirmative granted: 32.4;
Defensive granted: 24.
Court: Orlando;
Affirmative granted: 42.8;
Defensive granted: 33.4.
Court: Philadelphia;
Affirmative granted: 26.7;
Defensive granted: 16.5.
Court: San Diego;
Affirmative granted: 27.1;
Defensive granted: 20.7.
Court: San Francisco;
Affirmative granted: 46;
Defensive granted: 34.9.
Court: Seattle;
Affirmative granted: 30.8;
Defensive granted: 14.9.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
We examined grant rates for applicants of the same nationality and
found sizable differences across immigration courts for both
affirmative and defensive cases. For example, for the 19 immigration
courts that decided 50 or more cases from the 20 countries, we found
that less than 1 percent of Guatemalan affirmative asylum seekers in
Atlanta were granted asylum, while around 30 percent of those in San
Francisco were granted asylum. Similarly, 12 percent of Chinese
affirmative asylum seekers were granted asylum in Atlanta, while 75
percent were granted asylum in Orlando. Even when immigration courts
are relatively close to one another geographically, there were
sometimes large differences in asylum decisions for a particular
nationality and sometimes not. For example, the grant rate for
affirmative asylum cases in New York and Newark was identical or
similar for Chinese, El Salvadoran, and Nigerian applicants (table 1).
In contrast, the grant rate for affirmative applicants from Colombia,
Indonesia, and Peru was more than 2.5 times higher in New York than in
nearby Newark.
Table 1: Affirmative Grant Rate for Selected Nationalities in Two
Geographically Proximal Immigration Courts:
Immigration Court: New York; Applicants' nationality: China: 57%;
Applicants' nationality: El Salvador: 9%; Applicants' nationality:
Nigeria: 36%; Applicants' nationality: Colombia: 69%; Applicants'
nationality: Indonesia: 61%; Applicants' nationality: Peru: 54%.
Immigration Court: Newark;
Applicants' nationality: China: 57%; Applicants' nationality: El
Salvador: 7%; Applicants' nationality: Nigeria: 39%; Applicants'
nationality: Colombia: 26%; Applicants' nationality: Indonesia: 19%;
Applicants' nationality: Peru: 17%.
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
Note: For full information on grant and denial rates for affirmative
and defensive cases by country and immigration court for immigration
courts deciding 50 or more cases, see table 12.
[End of table]
Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Differed Significantly across
Immigration Courts Even After the Effects of Other Factors Were
Controlled:
The likelihood of being granted asylum differed considerably across
immigration courts, even after we statistically controlled
simultaneously for the effects of a number of factors. For example, we
found that relative to Atlanta, affirmative asylum applicants in San
Francisco were about 12 times more likely to be granted asylum,
applicants in New York were about 10 times more likely to be granted
asylum, and applicants in Dallas and Houston were about 7 times more
likely to be granted asylum. Defensive applicants in these cities were
also more likely to be granted asylum than in Atlanta, with the
likelihood being about 15 times greater in San Francisco, 8 times
greater in New York, and about 4 times greater in Dallas and Houston.
In these analyses we controlled for applicants' nationality; the time
period in which their case was decided; and whether they had
representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, and,
among defensive cases, if they were ever detained. (See tables 13 and
14 in app. II for the likelihood of applicants being granted asylum in
each of the 19 immigration courts.)
Data limitations prevented us from controlling for other factors that
could have contributed to variability in case outcomes. Although we
were able to control some factors related to the merits of asylum cases
(such as nationality and whether the applicant appeared for the asylum
hearing), we did not statistically control for the underlying facts and
merits of the cases being decided because data were not available. This
is because asylum decisions require a determination of applicant
credibility, often without corroborating evidence, and immigration
judges generally do not, and are not required to, document each factor
(such as applicants' demeanor while testifying) that went into their
overall assessment of credibility. It would be difficult and burdensome
for them to do so. Therefore, we were not in a position determine the
extent to which such factors accounted for the pronounced differences
that we found in the likelihood of applicants being granted asylum
across immigration courts and judges. Nonetheless, these multivariate
analyses can increase the understanding of variability in asylum
decisions because our statistical controls help account for differences
among immigration judges and applicants and enable comparisons to be
made across immigration courts and judges.
In the following sections, we examine the effects of each of the
factors that we were able to control in our statistical analyses.
Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Varied by Nationality:
Just as the likelihood of being granted asylum varied across
immigration courts, it also varied by nationality. The grant rate for
affirmative cases exceeded 50 percent for asylum seekers from some
countries, including Albania, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, Somalia,
and Yugoslavia (see fig. 3). For other countries, including El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, it was lower than 10 percent.
Similarly, while about 50 percent of asylum seekers in defensive cases
from Iran and Ethiopia were granted asylum and almost 60 percent of
such cases from Somalia were granted asylum, the same was true of 13
percent or less defensive asylum cases from El Salvador, Honduras and
Indonesia.
Figure 3: Percentage of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases Granted,
by Nationality:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing the percentage of
affirmative and defensive asylum cases granted, by nationality. The X
axis represents the nationality, and the Y axis represents the percent.
The lighter shading represents affirmative granted, and the darker
shading represents defensive granted.
Nationality: Albania;
Affirmative granted: 56;
Defensive granted: 38.7.
Nationality: Bangladesh;
Affirmative granted: 32.2;
Defensive granted: 29.2.
Nationality: China;
Affirmative granted: 54.4;
Defensive granted: 34.8.
Nationality: Colombia;
Affirmative granted: 34.3;
Defensive granted: 20.9.
Nationality: El Salvador;
Affirmative granted: 6.9;
Defensive granted: 7.3.
Nationality: Ethiopia;
Affirmative granted: 53.2;
Defensive granted: 52.1.
Nationality: Guatemala;
Affirmative granted: 9.4;
Defensive granted: 13.8.
Nationality: Haiti;
Affirmative granted: 16.3;
Defensive granted: 12.6.
Nationality: Honduras;
Affirmative granted: 9.8;
Defensive granted: 10.7.
Nationality: India;
Affirmative granted: 42.3;
Defensive granted: 24.9.
Nationality: Indonesia;
Affirmative granted: 33.4;
Defensive granted: 10.6.
Nationality: Iran;
Affirmative granted: 58.3;
Defensive granted: 49.9.
Nationality: Mexico;
Affirmative granted: 7.2;
Defensive granted: 16.3.
Nationality: Nicaragua;
Affirmative granted: 16.2;
Defensive granted: 14.8.
Nationality: Nigeria;
Affirmative granted: 34.9;
Defensive granted: 26.8.
Nationality: Pakistan;
Affirmative granted: 39.9;
Defensive granted: 23.2.
Nationality: Peru;
Affirmative granted: 31;
Defensive granted: 28.1.
Nationality: Russia;
Affirmative granted: 63;
Defensive granted: 43.1.
Nationality: Somalia;
Affirmative granted: 55;
Defensive granted: 57.7.
Nationality: Yugoslavia;
Affirmative granted: 57.9;
Defensive granted: 47.2.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
The likelihood of being granted asylum also differed considerably
across the 20 nationalities, even after we statistically controlled
simultaneously for the effects of the immigration court the case was
heard in; the time period in which the case was decided; and whether
applicants had representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1 year
of entry, and, among defensive cases, if they were ever detained. For
example, among affirmative asylum applicants, the likelihood of being
granted asylum after controlling for these factors was about 1.5 times
greater if the applicant was from Russia than Albania, about 3 times
greater if the applicant was from Somalia than Nigeria; and about 4
times greater if the applicant was from Iran than Bangladesh or India.
Differences in the extent to which applicants from various countries
are granted or denied asylum in the United States is not surprising in
light of the differences that exist among countries' political climates
and human rights records. (See tables 13 and 14 in app. II for full
information on the likelihood of affirmative and defensive cases being
granted asylum for the 20 nationalities we examined.)
Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Has Increased over Time:
Grant rates generally increased from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year
2007 (see fig. 4). This was the case for both affirmative and defensive
applicants, although grant rates for affirmative applicants increased
substantially more than they did for defensive applicants. The grant
rates for defensive applicants did not change substantially during the
period from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2005, and grant rates
for affirmative applicants did not change substantially during the
period from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005. Beginning in
fiscal year 1998, affirmative asylum applications were more likely to
be granted than defensive asylum applications, while the opposite was
true in the 3 fiscal years for which we had data prior to that time.
Figure 4: Asylum Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Applicants,
by Fiscal Year of Immigration Judge Decision:
This figure is a combination line graph showing asylym grant rates for
affirmative and defensive applicants, by fiscal year of immigration
judge decision. The X axis represents the fiscal year, and the Y axis
represents the percent granted. One line represents the affirmative,
and the other line represents defensive.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Affirmative: 11.8;
Defensive: 13.9.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Affirmative: 15.7;
Defensive: 18.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Affirmative: 23.6;
Defensive: 24.3.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Affirmative: 30.9;
Defensive: 25.5.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Affirmative: 33.1;
Defensive: 28.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Affirmative: 38.2;
Defensive: 26.6.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Affirmative: 41.8;
Defensive: 28.2.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Affirmative: 43.6;
Defensive: 25.8.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Affirmative: 43.3;
Defensive: 25.8.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Affirmative: 43.6;
Defensive: 27.1.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Affirmative: 41.1;
Defensive: 26.8.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Affirmative: 46;
Defensive: 33.1.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Affirmative: 47.3;
Defensive: 42.4.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
When we examined grant rates in three distinct time periods--(1) from
the beginning of our data series on October 1, 1994, through March 30,
1997, the day prior to the implementation date for the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; (2) from
April 1, 1997, through September 10, 2001; and (3) from September 11,
2001, through the final day in our data series on April 30, 2007--and
we found that the grant rate for affirmative cases doubled from the
first to the second period (increasing from 17 percent to 35 percent)
and increased by another 9 percent (to 44 percent) from the second to
the third period. We also found that for affirmative cases, in
particular, denials resulting from claimants not showing up for their
asylum hearings decreased greatly over the three periods, from 44
percent in the first period to 23 percent in the second and only 4
percent in the third. The percentage of defensive cases granted asylum
also increased in each period, from 17 percent to 27 percent to 29
percent, but not as much as affirmative cases. While we do not have
direct evidence that explains these findings, the relatively lower
grant rates in the early period may reflect the effects of reforms
instituted in the mid 1990s to reduce fraud in the asylum system,
[Footnote 33] and the plateau in defensive grant rates after 1997 may
reflect the effects of changes called for by the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which made it more
difficult for applicants with criminal records to get asylum. The
overall increase in asylum grants over time may also have been because
of, in part, an increase in asylum applications from and asylum grants
to Chinese nationals. Chinese applicants accounted for 18, 26, and 34
percent of the total number of asylum cases in the three time periods,
respectively.
The likelihood of being granted asylum also differed considerably
across the three time periods, after we statistically controlled
simultaneously for the effects of the immigration court the case was
heard in; the applicant's nationality; and whether applicants had
representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, and,
among defensive cases, if they were ever detained. For example, among
affirmative applicants, the likelihood of being granted asylum doubled
from the first time period (October 1, 1994, to March 31, 1997) to the
second (April 1, 1997 to September 10, 2001), and increased again from
the second to the third time period (September 11, 2001 to April 30,
2007) by 35 percent. Officials at EOIR speculated that, in addition to
the reasons cited above, regime change in some countries; changes in
case law; and efforts to deter cases that lack merit may have been
among the reasons for the increase in asylum grants over time.
Representation Was Associated with Greater Likelihood of Being Granted
Asylum:
For both affirmative and defensive cases, having representation was
associated with more than a three-fold increase in the asylum grant
rate compared to those without representation. The grant rate for
affirmative applicants with representation was 39 percent, compared to
12 percent for those without representation. For defensive cases, the
grant rate for applicants with representation was 27 percent, compared
to 8 percent without.
Representation generally doubled the likelihood of affirmative and
defensive cases being granted asylum, after we controlled for the
effects of the immigration court the case was heard in; the applicant's
nationality; the time period in which the decision was made; and
whether the applicant claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry,
and, among defensive cases, if the applicant was ever detained.
According to EOIR officials, there could be several explanations for
why representation can increase the likelihood of applicants being
granted asylum. For example, officials said that attorneys can help
applicants present their case more effectively because asylum law is
complicated and applicants face cultural barriers; and attorneys can
make better decisions about the viability of a case, so claims that are
not likely to be granted won't go forward.
Filing Application within 1 Year of Entry Was Associated with Greater
Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum:
Just as having representation was associated with a greater likelihood
of being granted asylum, so was filing an application within 1 year of
entry to the United States. Affirmative applicants who filed their
asylum application within 1 year of entry to the United States had a
grant rate of 42 percent, compared with 26 percent of those who did not
file within 1 year. The grant rate for defensive applicants was 29
percent among those who filed within 1 year of entry, and 22 percent
among those who did not.
Filing within 1 year of entry increased the likelihood of affirmative
and defensive cases being granted asylum by 40 percent and 30 percent,
respectively, after we controlled for the effects of the immigration
court in which the case was heard; the applicant's nationality; the
time period in which the decision was made; and whether the applicant
had representation, claimed dependents, and, among defensive cases, if
the applicant was ever detained. Since those who fail to apply for
asylum within 1 year of entry are generally barred from receiving
asylum, the positive association between filing within 1 year and
immigration judges granting asylum is understandable.[Footnote 34]
Claiming Dependents on the Asylum Application Was Associated with
Greater Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum:
For both affirmative and defensive cases, the grant rate for those who
claimed dependents on their asylum application was higher than for
those who did not. Among affirmative applicants, 43 percent of those
who claimed dependents were granted asylum, compared to 36 percent of
those who did not. Among defensive applicants, the grant rate was 37
percent for those who claimed dependents and 25 percent for those who
did not.
The positive association between asylum grants and claiming dependents
persisted after we controlled for the effects of the immigration court
in which the case was heard; the applicant's nationality; the time
period in which the decision was made; and whether the applicant had
representation, filed within 1 year of entry, and, among defensive
cases, if the applicant was ever detained. The likelihood of being
granted asylum was roughly 50 percent greater for affirmative cases,
and roughly 80 percent greater for defensive cases, when the asylum
applicant claimed dependents on the asylum application. While we do not
know why applicants with dependents were more likely to be granted
asylum, those who came to their hearings with a spouse or dependent
children may have appeared to adjudicators to have more sympathetic
cases than applicants who appeared alone.
Defensive Applicants Who Had Been Detained Had Lower Likelihood of
Being Granted Asylum Than Defensive Applicants Who Had Not Been
Detained:
Asylum results differed depending on whether the data were tabulated
using grant rates or analyzed using statistical controls for the
effects of other outcome-related factors. In terms of grant rates,
there was little difference in the grant rates of defensive cases who
had and had not been detained. The grant rate for applicants who had
been detained was 25 percent, compared to 27 percent for those who had
not been detained.
However, when we controlled for the effects of the immigration court
the case was heard in; the applicant's nationality; the time period in
which the decision was made; and whether the applicant had
representation, filed within 1 year of entry, or claimed dependents on
the asylum application, we found that those who had been detained were
about two-thirds as likely to be granted asylum as those who had not
been detained. According to EOIR officials, the category of applicants
who had been detained may contain a higher percentage of criminal
applicants, who may be statutorily ineligible to be granted asylum.
Additionally, detained applicants may have more difficulty obtaining
evidence in support of their claims. We did not examine the effects of
detention in affirmative cases, as very few of the affirmative
applicants, who are generally free to live in the United States pending
the completion of their claims, were detained during their removal
hearings.
Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Differed across Immigration Judges:
Immigration judges varied considerably in the asylum decisions they
rendered, both across and within immigration courts, and in both
affirmative and defensive cases. Grant rates for the immigration judges
in our review ranged between 2 percent and 93 percent for affirmative
cases, and between 2 percent and 72 percent for defensive cases. Our
analysis was based on 196 immigration judges who heard more than 50
affirmative or defensive asylum cases from one or more of the 20
nationalities between October 1, 1994, and April 30, 2007. The asylum
caseload of these 196 immigration judges consisted of more than three-
quarters of all affirmative cases and nearly 90 percent of all
defensive cases from the 19 different immigration courts we considered.
(See fig. 5, below, and tables 17 and 18 in app. III, for the grant and
denial rates of all the immigration judges included in our review.)
We examined the data to determine if variability in grant rates across
immigration judges was at least partly because of the fact that
different immigration courts have proportionately different numbers of
cases from different countries. We found that even within immigration
courts, there were pronounced differences in grant rates across
immigration judges. This was the case even though asylum and other
immigration cases were reportedly assigned to immigration judges
largely at random. For example, grant rates for affirmative cases
ranged between 19 percent and 61 percent in Arlington, Va., 8 percent
and 55 percent in Boston, 2 percent and 72 percent in Miami, and 3
percent and 93 percent in New York City (see fig. 5). The variation
across immigration judges in many of the remaining courts was similarly
large. For defensive cases, there was also large variability in the
grant rates of immigration judges within the same immigration court,
but the difference between the highest and lowest granting immigration
judge within each immigration court was somewhat lower than for
affirmative cases (see app. III, fig. 13).
Figure 5: Immigration Judge Asylum Grant Rates, Affirmative Cases, by
Immigration Court:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
Note: Each line within a court represents the average grant rate for a
single immigration judge.
[End of figure]
The likelihood of being granted asylum differed considerably across
immigration judges within the same immigration court even after we
statistically controlled simultaneously for the effects of applicants'
nationality; the time period in which their case was decided; and
whether they had representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1
year of entry, and, among defensive cases, if they were ever detained.
For example, in the New York immigration court, the likelihood of an
affirmative applicant being granted asylum was 420 times greater if the
applicant's case were handled by the immigration judge who had the
highest likelihood of granting asylum than if the applicant's case were
handled by the immigration judge who had the lowest likelihood in that
immigration court. If we consider the two immigration judges at the
highest and lowest ends of the granting spectrum to be outliers, and
instead compare immigration judges who were second highest and second
lowest, the disparity was still great. The likelihood of being granted
asylum in New York was 122 times greater for applicants whose cases
were decided by the immigration judge with the second highest versus
the second lowest likelihood of granting asylum. Even when we compared
the third highest and third lowest asylum granting immigration judges
in New York, applicants were still 35 times more likely to be granted
asylum by the former than the latter. For defensive cases in New York,
the likelihood of being granted asylum was 93 times greater for
applicants whose cases were decided by the immigration judge with the
highest versus the lowest likelihood of granting asylum in the
immigration court. (Table 2 below provides information on the extent to
which the likelihood of being granted asylum varied within the same
immigration court; and the last column of tables 17 and 18 in app. III
shows the likelihood of being granted asylum by each immigration judge
in each immigration court, after controlling for the effects of other
factors.) As can be determined from table 2, in 14 out of 19
immigration courts for affirmative cases, and in 13 out of 19
immigration courts for defensive cases, the likelihood of being granted
asylum was at least 4 times as great for applicants whose cases were
decided by the immigration judge with the highest versus lowest grant
rate in the immigration court. For example, an affirmative applicant
whose case was assigned to the immigration judge most likely to grant
asylum in Arlington, Va., had a likelihood (or odds ratio) of being
granted asylum that was nearly 6 times as great as an applicant whose
case was assigned to the immigration judge least likely to grant asylum
in the Arlington immigration court. In a later section of this report,
we discuss recent initiatives by EOIR to provide training, mentoring,
and supervision to immigration judges whose performance EOIR has
determined needs improvement, using indicators such as asylum grant
rates of the immigration judges, complaints filed about immigration
judge performance, and reversals and remands from the BIA.
Table 2: Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum If Case Was Heard by the
Immigration Judge Most Likely to Grant Asylum, Compared to the
Immigration Judge Least Likely to Grant Asylum, by Immigration Court:
1. Arlington;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 6; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 5.95; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 7; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 21.73.
2. Atlanta;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 5; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 6.09; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 2; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 2.75.
3. Baltimore;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 6; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 4.10; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 5; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 4.45.
4. Bloomington;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 2; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 3.14; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 2; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 1.69.
5. Boston;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 8; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 12.71; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 9; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 6.19.
6. Chicago;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 7; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 4.05; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 2.46.
7. Dallas;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 2; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 1.68; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 4; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 11.73.
8. Denver;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 3; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 1.57; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 1.31.
9. Detroit;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 2; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 1.27; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 11.5.
10. Houston;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 5; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 6.56; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 18.65.
11. Los Angeles;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 36; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 18.19; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 32; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 24.78.
12. Miami;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 29; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 122.11; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 26; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 50.64.
13. New York;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 38; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 419.83; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 39; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 93.40.
14. Newark;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 7; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 7.46; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 9.15.
15. Orlando;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 4; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 2.93; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 5.51.
16. Philadelphia;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 4; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 9.76; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 2.57.
17. San Diego;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 6; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 4.07; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 4.93.
18. San Francisco;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 23; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 38.77; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 20; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 21.80.
19. Seattle;
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 3; Affirmative
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 10.89; Defensive cases: Number of
immigration judges[C]: 5; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio:
Adjusted odds ratio: 2.67.
Source: GAO Analysis of EOIR data.
[A] Numbers represent immigration judges hearing 50 or more affirmative
cases in their primary immigration court.
[B] Represents the relative likelihood (or odds ratio) of the
immigration judge with the highest likelihood of granting asylum
compared to the immigration judge with the lowest likelihood of
granting asylum within each immigration court, after we statistically
controlled for the effects of applicants' nationality; the time period
in which their case was decided; and whether they had representation,
claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, and, among defensive
cases, if they were ever detained.
[C] Numbers represent immigration judges hearing 50 or more defensive
cases in their primary immigration court.
[End of table]
Asylum Grant Rates Were Weakly Related to Immigration Judge
Characteristics:
In a separate set of analyses, after statistically controlling for
claimant and immigration judge characteristics, immigration judges'
gender and length of experience as an immigration judge were associated
with the likelihood of being granted asylum; while age, race/ethnicity,
veteran status, prior government immigration experience, prior
experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization,
caseload size, and the presidential administration under which judges
were appointed were not. These results are detailed in appendix III,
tables 19 and 20, and related text.
With respect to gender differences, male immigration judges' grant rate
was lower than that of females for both affirmative and defensive
asylum cases. We found that after statistically controlling for 14
factors, male immigration judges were about 60 percent as likely as
female immigration judges to grant asylum in both affirmative cases and
defensive cases. The 14 factors that we controlled statistically in
this analysis were immigration judge's age, caseload size, length of
service, race/ethnicity, veteran status, prior government immigration
experience, prior experience doing immigration work for a non-profit
organization, the presidential administration under which the
immigration judge was appointed, applicant's nationality, whether the
applicant was represented, time period when the case was decided, and
if the applicant had claimed dependents on the asylum application,
filed within 1 year of entry, and, among defensive cases, if the
applicant was ever detained.
With respect to length of service, immigration judges with less than 3
½ years of experience had a lower affirmative grant rate than those
with 3 ½ to 10 years of experience, or those with 10 or more years of
experience as an immigration judge. For defensive cases, immigration
judges with 10 or more years of experience had the highest grant rate.
After we statistically controlled for the effects of the same 14
factors as in our analysis of gender differences, we found that net of
these other factors, immigration judges with 3 ½ to 10 years of
experience were more likely than less experienced immigration judges to
grant asylum in affirmative cases, by a factor of 1.25. In other words,
controlling for the effects of the other factors, these immigration
judges were 25 percent more likely to grant asylum than those with less
experience. Immigration judges with more than 10 years of experience
were also somewhat more likely than the least experienced immigration
judges to grant asylum, but the difference was not statistically
significant. Immigration judges' experience level was not significantly
associated with outcomes in defensive asylum cases.
None of the other immigration judge characteristics had significant
effects on the likelihood of being granted asylum. This suggests that
the immigration judge characteristics for which we had data were not
sufficient to account for the large differences in the likelihood of
being granted asylum across individual judges.
Immigration Judges within the Same Immigration Courts Hearing Asylum
Claims from Applicants of the Same Nationality Varied in Likelihood of
Granting Asylum, but Immigration Judges' Characteristics Did Not
Generally Affect Differences in Outcome:
In our final set of analyses, we continued to find substantial
disparities in the likelihood of being granted asylum even when we
looked at cases that shared certain characteristics--that is, the cases
of asylum applicants of the same nationality who appeared before
immigration judges in the same immigration court. Our analyses focused
on the likelihood of being granted asylum in four country-immigration
court combinations for affirmative cases (China in New York, China in
Los Angeles, Haiti in Miami, and India in San Francisco), and two
country-immigration court combinations for defensive cases (China in
New York, and Haiti in Miami).[Footnote 35] The results of these
analyses are summarized in table 21 in appendix III.
Many and often most of the immigration judges in the same immigration
court differed significantly in their likelihood of granting asylum to
applicants of the same nationality when compared to the immigration
judge who represented the average likelihood of granting asylum in that
immigration court (the "average immigration judge"). This was the case
both before and after we statistically controlled for the effects of
five claimant characteristics (representation, claimed one or more
dependents on application, filed for asylum within 1 year of entry to
the United States, time period in which application was filed, and,
among defensive cases, if the applicant was ever detained). In the four
immigration courts where we examined affirmative asylum cases and
statistically controlled for the five claimant characteristics, we
found that that between 34 percent of immigration judges handling cases
from China in Los Angeles and 84 percent of immigration judges handling
cases from China in New York had a likelihood of granting asylum that
differed significantly from that of the average immigration judge in
the same immigration court. In the two immigration courts where we
examined defensive asylum cases and statistically controlled for
claimant characteristics, we found that in both, approximately 40
percent of immigration judges differed significantly from the average
immigration judge in the same immigration court in their likelihood of
granting asylum.
The size of the estimated effects of the claimant characteristics was
comparable in these analyses to what we found when we previously looked
across all immigration judges and all 19 immigration courts. Having
dependents significantly increased the likelihood of being granted
asylum in five of the six immigration court-country combinations, while
having representation and applying for asylum within 1 year of entry to
the United States significantly increased the likelihood of being
granted asylum in four of the six combinations. Further, the likelihood
of being granted asylum significantly increased over time for both
affirmative and defensive Chinese applicants in New York, but
significantly decreased for affirmative Chinese applicants in Los
Angeles.
Noteworthy, also, is the absence of consistent effects of immigration
judge characteristics. With some exceptions, we generally found that
the following factors did not have statistically significant effects on
the likelihood of being granted asylum: immigration judges' age, race/
ethnicity, veteran status, prior government immigration experience, or
prior experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization.
EOIR Has Taken Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges in
the Asylum Process, but Some Actions to Identify Immigration Judges
with Training Needs Were Limited, and the Resources and Guidance Needed
to Ensure Effective Supervision Had Not Been Determined:
EOIR has taken actions to improve its assistance to aliens in removal
proceedings by, among other things, expanding programs to help aliens
obtain representation, improving accuracy in EOIR's list of free legal
service providers, and drafting proposed regulations to promote the
availability of free and low-cost legal services. EOIR has also taken
actions to identify and improve the performance of immigration judges
who may need supervisory attention. EOIR conducted studies of
immigration judges' grant rates, but did not statistically control for
factors that can affect asylum outcomes. EOIR said it was using
information on which immigration judges had unusually high or low
asylum grant rates, in conjunction with other indicators of
performance, to identify immigration judges in need of greater
supervision, and has taken steps to increase training and make
mentoring available for all immigration judges. However, EOIR's
analyses of immigration judges' decisions did not statistically control
for a number of factors that affected those decisions, and EOIR has not
determined the ACIJ resources and guidance needed to ensure that
immigration judges are effectively supervised.
EOIR Has Taken Actions to Expand Its Pro Bono Programs:
EOIR has taken several actions to improve its assistance to aliens in
removal proceedings, including expanding its Legal Orientation Program
(LOP), improving the accuracy of its list of free legal providers,
drafting proposed regulations to help promote the availability of free
and low-cost legal services, and issuing a policy memorandum to
facilitate pro bono representation in removal proceedings. The LOP is
an initiative designed to improve efficiency in immigration courts and
assist adult detained aliens in removal proceedings by helping them
understand their legal rights and how to access potential
counsel.[Footnote 36]
EOIR expanded its LOP in response to an August 2006 directive from the
Attorney General to improve and expand pro bono services. Pursuant to
the Attorney General's directive, EOIR increased its cadre of LOP sites
from 6 to 13, although 2 sites were subsequently discontinued in 2007
and 1 additional site was added that year.[Footnote 37] In March 2008,
EOIR stated that because of an increase in funding for LOP in fiscal
year 2008 (from $2 million to $3.76 million), it expected to establish
new programs at 6 to 10 additional sites by the end of calendar year
2008 and to determine by September 1, 2008, at which current sites
program services would be increased. In May 2008, an EOIR-funded
evaluation of the outcomes and performance of the LOP reported that
from January 1 through December 31, 2006, unrepresented asylum
applicants were more likely to be granted asylum in immigration court
when they received such LOP-provided services as individual
orientations and self-help workshops, in addition to the initial group
orientation that nearly all LOP participants receive.[Footnote 38]
According to the Vera Institute of Justice, asylum applicants who
received any of these additional services were granted asylum 9.4
percent of the time, versus 2.4 percent for those LOP participants who
attended group orientations alone. The evaluation also reported
increases from 2002 (6 months before the program began) to 2005 in
representation rates for individuals with applications for relief--
including asylum--in sites with LOP programs, compared to sites without
programs.[Footnote 39] GAO did not assess the reliability of the data
used by Vera in its analyses.
EOIR has also taken actions to improve the accuracy of its list of
eligible free legal service providers, and has drafted proposed
regulations to strengthen the requirements for attorneys and
organizations wishing to be placed on this list. According to EOIR, all
individuals in immigration proceedings are to be provided a copy of the
"List of Free Legal Service Providers," maintained by the Office of the
Chief Immigration Judge. The list was created with the intent to
increase opportunities for indigent aliens to obtain free legal
counsel, and contains the names of attorneys, bar associations, and
certain non-profit organizations who are willing to provide free legal
services to indigent individuals in immigration proceedings. In 2005,
EOIR audited the Free Legal Service Providers list for accuracy and
eliminated providers that it determined were no longer providing pro
bono services. In March 2008, EOIR stated that it had increased its
monitoring of entities on the list and had acted to remove the names of
attorneys and organizations that have not met the list's requirements.
Furthermore, as a result of the Attorney General's directive to improve
and expand pro bono programs, EOIR has drafted two proposed regulations
which it says will ensure the integrity and promote the availability of
free and low-cost legal services. As of September 2008, these draft
proposed regulations were under review with DOJ's Office of Legal
Policy. The first is to strengthen the requirements for entities and
individuals wishing to be placed on the "Free Legal Service Providers"
list. The second is to strengthen the process for recognizing and
accrediting organizations and individuals charging only nominal fees
for providing immigration services and wishing to be placed on EOIR's
Recognition and Accreditation Roster, which appears on EOIR's Web site.
EOIR's Pro Bono Coordinator stated that this regulation would take
longer to develop, as it requires joint rule-making with DHS's USCIS
and ICE.
EOIR issued a policy memorandum to the immigration courts in March
2008, which listed guidelines and best practices for facilitating pro
bono representation in removal hearings--including such activities as
appointing a liaison immigration judge to coordinate with local pro
bono providers, and encouraging immigration judges to be flexible in
scheduling hearings that involve pro bono providers who may require
additional time to recruit and train representatives. The memorandum
also listed guidelines for tracking pro bono cases in EOIR's case
management database. EOIR stated that tracking appearances by pro bono
counsel will enable it, among other things, to better monitor the
number of pro bono cases handled by entities on the "Free Legal Service
Providers" list and verify genuine pro bono representation. EOIR
officials stated that EOIR planned to review how successfully
immigration judges and immigration court personnel were tracking pro
bono cases at the summer 2008 meeting of the committee set up to
implement the Attorney General's directive regarding pro bono
representation.
EOIR Has Sought to Identify Immigration Judges Needing Supervisory
Attention and Improve Their Performance, but EOIR's Analyses of
Immigration Judge Decisions Were Limited, As Were the ACIJ Resources
and Guidance Available to Supervise Immigration Judges:
EOIR has taken several actions to identify immigration judges who may
need supervisory attention and has designed mechanisms to improve the
performance of those judges. Beginning in 2006, partially in response
to a directive from the Attorney General that EOIR identify immigration
judges in need of additional training or supervision, EOIR's Office of
the Chief Immigration Judge conducted two internal studies to determine
asylum grant rates across all immigration judges. However, these
studies did not statistically control for the effects of a number of
factors that could affect the asylum outcome. This statistical
procedure would have increased the completeness, accuracy, and
usefulness of comparing asylum decisions across immigration courts and
judges. EOIR said it was using information reflecting which immigration
judges had unusually high or low asylum grant rates, in conjunction
with other indicators of performance, to identify immigration judges in
need of greater supervision. EOIR has also taken actions to improve
training for immigration judges and has developed a mentor directory to
encourage immigration judges to share best practices. However, there
are relatively few ACIJs available to supervise many geographically
dispersed immigration judges, and EOIR did not provide explicit
guidance to ACIJs on the elements of effective supervision of
immigration judges.
EOIR Conducted Studies of Immigration Judges' Grant Rates, but the
Usefulness of the Results Was Limited Because Factors Affecting Asylum
Outcomes Were Not Statistically Controlled:
EOIR conducted two studies of the asylum grant rates of its immigration
judges, but neither study used statistical controls to examine the
effects on grant rates of factors associated with asylum outcomes. EOIR
stated that in 2006, its Office of the Chief Immigration Judge
conducted a study to determine the grant rates for all immigration
judges who made any asylum decision from fiscal years 2001 through
2006. EOIR conducted a follow-up study in June 2008, which updated the
immigration judge grant rate information through the end of fiscal year
2007. EOIR said it did not run statistical analyses on the data, nor
use the results of the 2006 study to identify immigration judges whose
grant rates could be considered to be outliers. EOIR officials also
said that immigration judges' supervisors--the ACIJs--had not been
informed of the study's results as of May 2008 because EOIR had not
decided the value of the grant rate information. In contrast, EOIR's
June 2008 grant rate study determined the asylum grant and denial rate
for each immigration judge and identified those deemed to be outliers-
-that is, according to EOIR, immigration judges who were among the top
16 percent of asylum granters and the top 16 percent of asylum deniers.
Pursuant to the 2008 grant rate study, ACIJs were provided information
on those immigration judges under their supervision whose grant or
denial rates were among the top 16 percent of immigration judges in
their local immigration court and nationally.
When we compared the results of our multivariate statistical analyses
with those based on immigration judge grant rates, we found
considerable overlap as well as important differences between the two
sets of results. Specifically, when we rank ordered the affirmative
grant rates of all 196 immigration judges in our database (that is,
organized them from highest to lowest granters) before statistical
controls were applied, and correlated this with a similar rank ordering
of the same 196 immigration judges' after statistical controls were
applied, we found the correlation between the two to be high (.89).
However, the relative position of a sizable number of immigration
judges differed after we applied the statistical controls. With respect
to affirmative cases, of the 25 immigration judges who had the highest
asylum grant rates before we applied statistical controls and the 25
immigration judges who had the highest likelihoods of granting asylum
after we statistically controlled for other factors, 3 immigration
judges were the same and 22 were different. As an example of a
difference, one immigration judge whose grant rate ranked him as the
105th highest asylum granter out of 196 immigration judges before
statistical controls was the 17th highest granter after the effects of
six factors associated with asylum outcomes were statistically
controlled.[Footnote 40] Therefore, this particular immigration judge,
who would appear to be relatively average in terms of grant rate, was
in the top 10 percent of asylum granters after accounting for other
factors relevant to asylum outcomes. Another immigration judge's
relative position changed from 186 to 117 out of 196 immigration judges
when looking at the grant rate versus the likelihood of granting
asylum. In this case, the immigration judge would appear to be in the
top 10 percent of asylum deniers, but was, in fact, more in line with
other immigration judges' decisions after other factors were
statistically controlled. There were numerous other large discrepancies
between the relative positions of immigration judges, including one
immigration judge who ranked as the 189th highest asylum granter before
other factors were statistically controlled, and the 121st highest
granter after; and another immigration judge who ranked as the 171st
highest granter before other factors were statistically controlled, and
the 67th highest granter after.
In conducting its grant rate studies, EOIR attempted to take some
factors into account such as whether the applicant was detained or had
not appeared for the merits hearing. However, EOIR's grant rate studies
did not take into account available data on the characteristics of
asylum seekers (such as, nationality and representation) and
immigration judges (such as gender and length of experience) that are
statistically related to immigration judges' decisions to grant or deny
asylum. The relationship between these characteristics and variability
in asylum decisions by immigration judges across and within immigration
courts can be determined using a multivariate statistical analysis.
While generally accepted statistical practices include the use of
multivariate analyses to statistically control for various factors that
may affect outcomes when data on such factors are available, EOIR's
studies did not statistically control for such factors. According to
EOIR, (1) it does not have a trained statistician on staff who could
analyze its data using such sophisticated statistical controls, and (2)
its ability to obtain statistical expertise would depend on the
availability of funding. While we recognize that EOIR does not
currently have the expertise to conduct multivariate statistical
analyses, without doing so, the completeness, accuracy, and usefulness
of EOIR's grant rate studies are limited, and EOIR is hindered in its
efforts to have the information it seeks to help it identify
immigration judges who require additional training and supervision. The
results of our statistical analyses could help EOIR, on an interim
basis, further its understanding of immigration judges' asylum
decisions.
EOIR duly noted that caution must be exercised when evaluating
disparities in asylum grants because the asylum process is complex,
asylum decisions can be affected by factors unrelated to the underlying
merits of the case (such as compliance with the 1-year filing
deadline), and each case is unique and cannot be directly compared with
other cases. As noted earlier, EOIR said it was using information on
which immigration judges had unusually high or low asylum grant rates,
in conjunction with other indicators of performance (such as reversal
rates for legal error), to identify immigration judges in need of
greater supervision. Further, EOIR said it was improving training for
immigration judges and developing a program to encourage immigration
judges to share best practices.
Relatively Few ACIJs Were Tasked with Overseeing Many Immigration
Judges, and Had Little Guidance to Help Assure Effective Supervision:
In 2006, as part of an effort to increase management and oversight of
immigration courts, EOIR reassigned a number of ACIJs from headquarters
to immigration courts in field locations; however, insofar as ACIJs'
being a key component of this effort, EOIR's ability to achieve its
goal was hindered by limitations in both the availability of ACIJ
resources and guidance to ensure that immigration judges were
effectively supervised. EOIR's deployment of supervisors to field
locations was a pilot program undertaken in response to the results of
the Attorney General's 2006 review of the performance of immigration
courts. This review was prompted by complaints from litigants and
federal circuit courts, among others, about issues relating to the
caliber of immigration judges' legal work and their treatment of aliens
appearing before them.
ACIJs have a broad scope of responsibility, including supervising a
number of immigration judges in different locations. As of August 2008,
EOIR had 10 out of a total 11 ACIJs functioning in supervisory roles--
6 were located in the field, and 4 were located in EOIR
headquarters.[Footnote 41] The 6 ACIJs in the field, in addition to
handling their own caseload of immigration cases, supervised 148
immigration judges (69 percent of the total) in 32 different
immigration courts.[Footnote 42] The 4 ACIJs in EOIR headquarters, in
addition to handling administrative matters, supervised 68 immigration
judges (31 percent of the total) in 22 different immigration
courts.[Footnote 43] Exemplifying the span of supervisory
responsibility assigned ACIJs, one field ACIJ was assigned to supervise
27 immigration judges in 8 immigration courts in Texas and Louisiana;
and a headquarters ACIJ was assigned to supervise 24 immigration judges
in 8 immigration courts in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Although EOIR's deployment of ACIJs
to field locations was an effort to improve managerial contact and
oversight of immigration courts, the limited number of ACIJs, in
combination with ACIJs' broad span of control and limited time for
supervision, limits EOIR's ability to ensure that immigration judges
are being effectively supervised. EOIR has not determined how many
ACIJs it needs to effectively supervise immigration judges, and it has
not provided ACIJs with guidance on how to carry out their supervisory
role. Doing so would put EOIR in a better position to monitor
immigration judge performance and take appropriate action to correct or
prevent immigration judge performance issues that may arise.
Officials at EOIR said that they depend on the judgment of its ACIJs to
help identify and address the mentoring, training, and peer observation
needs of immigration judges and that asylum grant rate is only one of
several factors that may alert EOIR management to concerns about the
performance of immigration judges and the potential need for
ameliorative action. These officials further noted that information on
remands and reversals of immigration judge decisions, and complaints
from a wide variety of sources were also of great importance in
identifying the need for ameliorative action.
EOIR has a position description for its ACIJs that generically states
that the role of the ACIJ is to manage and coordinate immigration judge
activities and supervise the administrative operations of the
adjudications program. It tasks ACIJs with a range of duties pertaining
to legal, policy, operational, and human capital matters, including
managing immigration judge activities. EOIR also has written
performance appraisal standards for ACIJs' handling of people and
workforce issues. However, these standards make brief and general
reference to supervision in characterizing the behaviors that ACIJs are
to demonstrate in order to obtain an outstanding, excellent, or
successful rating on their handling of people and workforce issues. For
example, to obtain a successful rating, ACIJs are to take actions such
as training, discipline, and performance improvement plans to correct
poor immigration judge performance. More detailed guidance did not
exist regarding how ACIJs are to carry out their supervisory role, such
as how to develop familiarity with the performance of the numerous,
geographically dispersed immigration judges who were assigned to them,
how they are to allocate their time between supervising immigration
judges and handling their own caseload or operational duties, and how
ACIJs are to use information on immigration judges' asylum grant rates
in combination with other performance information they may collect.
According to a headquarters ACIJ, immigration courts are all different
and the supervisory role of the ACIJs depends on their location,
caseload, the immigration judges they supervise, and their relationship
with the private bar. Further, according to EOIR, as of May 2008, DOJ
had not yet determined whether or for how long the field ACIJ pilot
program should continue. While the circumstances of immigration judges
may differ and while it is uncertain if the ACIJ pilot program will be
temporary or permanent, ACIJs are nonetheless tasked with supervising
immigration judges. Internal control standards call for federal
agencies to design controls to assure that continuous supervision
occurs to help ensure the effective management of the agencies'
workforce. Given the ratio of ACIJs to immigration judges, the
geographic distance between them in many cases, and the additional
operational or adjudicative duties that consume the time of ACIJs,
ensuring effective management through supervision cannot be easy to
achieve. Providing more explicit guidance regarding the supervision
ACIJs are to provide immigration judges, including how they are to use
information on immigration judges' asylum grant rates in combination
with other performance information they may collect, could put ACIJs in
a better position to supervise immigration judges and take appropriate
action to correct or prevent performance issues that may arise.
Although EOIR has not yet developed more explicit guidance for the ACIJ
supervisory role, EOIR has been working on developing performance
appraisals for immigration judges, as recommended by the Attorney
General. EOIR reported it had implemented a system to evaluate the
performance of newly appointed immigration judges.[Footnote 44] In July
2008, EOIR told us it had also developed a performance appraisal system
for the remaining immigration judges, but the system had not yet been
implemented as the immigration judges' union had asked to negotiate on
various aspects of the proposed system.
EOIR Has Taken Actions to Increase Training and Mentoring:
According to EOIR, from September 2006[Footnote 45] through May 2008,
its Office of the Chief Immigration Judge referred 14 immigration
judges for additional or ameliorative training, of whom 6 were referred
for additional legal training. EOIR officials noted that additional
training has typically lasted a week and that many of the immigration
judges referred for training were required to participate in peer
observation at the training court, in addition to individual training
and mentoring. The precise number of peer observation sessions varied,
but EOIR said that, in general, the immigration judges observed one
mentor multiple times or observed multiple immigration judges within
the same immigration court over the course of the week, either in their
own immigration court location or at a training court. According to
EOIR officials, an attempt has been made to improve training for all
immigration judges, and not just for those identified as needing
ameliorative attention. EOIR officials said EOIR expanded its training
for newly hired immigration judges in September 2006 by extending the
time immigration judges are to observe hearings from 1 week to 4 weeks.
In addition to the new immigration judge training program, EOIR also
holds an annual immigration judge conference. This conference is a week-
long training that includes lectures and presentations. Although
immigration judges generally attended this conference in person, it was
canceled in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 and again in 2008 as a
result of budget constraints. A virtual conference that included
recorded presentations was offered in place of the in-person conference
in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and EOIR officials told us in that a
virtual conference, including one day devoted to asylum issues, was
offered in August 2008. The virtual conference included interactive
computer-based training addressing asylum issues before the immigration
courts and a multimedia presentation emphasizing the importance and
impact of immigration judge asylum decisions. According to EOIR,
immigration judges' supervisors were instructed to organize time for
each immigration judge to observe colleagues in immigration court prior
to the virtual conference. EOIR officials stated that EOIR will assess
the effectiveness of peer observation during the August training.
EOIR reported it has also developed a mentor directory to take
advantage of the pool of expertise among the immigration judges,
providing a list of immigration judges with expertise willing to serve
as mentors to their colleagues on specific areas of immigration law and
procedure. The mentors are to be available for consultation at any
time, and supervisors may use the directory to identify resources to
help sharpen immigration judges' legal skills. The mentor directory was
made available to all immigration judges on-line in April 2008 through
the Immigration Judge Benchbook.
BIA Streamlining Was Associated with a Reduction in BIA's Backlog and
Fewer Outcomes Favorable to Asylum Seekers:
The streamlining of BIA's administrative procedures was associated with
a pronounced decrease in the overall backlog of appeals pending at the
BIA, including asylum appeals, and in the number of BIA decisions
favorable to asylum seekers.[Footnote 46] Pursuant to the BIA's March
2002 streamlining changes in which cases involving asylum claims could,
for the first time, be decided by a single BIA member and without a
written opinion, there was a marked increase in the number of asylum
decisions rendered by the BIA, coupled with a reduction in the average
amount of time that asylum appeals were on the BIA docket. BIA
decisions favorable to asylum applicants were more than 50 percent
lower in the 4 years following the 2002 changes, a period during which
BIA members made substantial use of the authority to affirm immigration
judge decisions without writing an opinion (AWO). EOIR proposed
regulations in 2008 allowing for more written opinions and expanding
the criteria for referring appeals to three-member panels, but it is
too soon to tell how these procedures will affect asylum appeals
outcomes.
BIA's Backlog of Cases Decreased after Streamlining:
DOJ realized its objective of reducing the BIA's overall backlog of
cases, including asylum cases, by streamlining BIA's procedures for
handling immigration appeals. During each of fiscal years 1995 through
2000, the annual number of cases completed at the BIA was generally
lower than the number of cases received, driving up the appeals backlog
to a peak of over 58,000 cases in fiscal year 2000 (see fig. 6). With
the implementation of BIA's initial streamlining in late fiscal year
2000--which applied to a number of categories of appeals other than
asylum, withholding, or CAT--BIA's overall backlog of cases began to
decrease. In fiscal year 2002, when DOJ authorized the inclusion of
asylum, withholding, and CAT appeals in the category of cases subject
to streamlining procedures and made single member review the primary
mode of BIA decision-making, the overall BIA backlog decreased further
and was at its lowest level in 12 years in fiscal year 2006, with
approximately 26,100 pending appeals, before increasing slightly in
fiscal year 2007 to about 27,700 pending appeals.
Figure 6: Overall BIA Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing overall BIA receipts,
completions, and pending appeals of immigration judge decisions, by
fiscal year. The X axis represents the fiscal year of BIA decision, and
the Y axis represents the number of appeals from IJ decisions. The bars
represent receipts, completions, and pending.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1995; Receipts: 17,880;
Completions: 10,693;
Pending: 26,382.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1996; Receipts: 23,445;
Completions: 14,530;
Pending: 35,299.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1997; Receipts: 27,310;
Completions: 19,956;
Pending: 42,655.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Receipts: 26,351;
Completions: 25,843;
Pending: 43,201.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Receipts: 28,393;
Completions: 21,307;
Pending: 50,293.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Receipts: 26,603;
Completions: 18,037;
Pending: 58,859.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Receipts: 24,881;
Completions: 27,184;
Pending: 56,559.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Receipts: 33,347;
Completions: 45,297;
Pending: 44,611.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Receipts: 40,593;
Completions: 46,555;
Pending: 38,649.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Receipts: 40,654;
Completions: 46,503;
Pending: 32,800.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Receipts: 39,677;
Completions: 43,005;
Pending: 29,472.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Receipts: 34,720;
Completions: 37,669;
Pending: 26,523.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2007; Receipts: 32,658;
Completions: 31,467;
Pending: 27,716.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
For BIA appeals in cases involving asylum applications, the backlog of
cases grew until fiscal year 2001, and then began to decrease beginning
in fiscal year 2002, the year in which streamlining was extended to
asylum, withholding, and CAT appeals. The backlog was at its lowest
level in 13 years in fiscal year 2007, at about 18,700 pending appeals
(see fig. 7).
Figure 7: BIA Asylum Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing BIA asylum receipts,
completions, and pending appeals of immigration judge decisions, by
fiscal year. The X axis represents fiscal year of BIA decision, and the
Y axis represents the number of asylum appeals from IJ decisions. The
bars represent asylum receipts, asylum completions, and asylum pending.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1995; Asylum receipts: 10,188;
Asylum completions: 5,246;
Asylum pending: 16,495.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1996; Asylum receipts: 13,888;
Asylum completions: 7,566;
Asylum pending: 22,817.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1997; Asylum receipts: 12,524;
Asylum completions: 9,588;
Asylum pending: 25,755.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Asylum receipts: 13,129;
Asylum completions: 14,722;
Asylum pending: 24,176.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Asylum receipts: 14,993;
Asylum completions: 8,702;
Asylum pending: 30,469.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Asylum receipts: 14,825;
Asylum completions: 7,848;
Asylum pending: 37,446.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Asylum receipts: 14,353;
Asylum completions: 13,899;
Asylum pending: 37,901.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Asylum receipts: 20,259;
Asylum completions: 27,059;
Asylum pending: 31,102.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Asylum receipts: 26,598;
Asylum completions: 30,695;
Asylum pending: 27,005.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Asylum receipts: 26,546;
Asylum completions: 30,322;
Asylum pending: 23,229.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Asylum receipts: 25,332;
Asylum completions: 27,840;
Asylum pending: 20,721.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Asylum receipts: 21,640;
Asylum completions: 23,461;
Asylum pending: 18,900.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2007; Asylum receipts: 19,516;
Asylum completions: 19,758;
Asylum pending: 18,660.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
Following the March 2002 streamlining, there was a pronounced increase
in the annual number of BIA decisions involving asylum cases, and a
decrease in the average amount of time taken to decide asylum cases on
BIA's docket (see fig 8). The overall number of BIA asylum decisions
was about 12,000 in fiscal year 2001, increased to a high of between
about 22,000 and 23,000 in fiscal years 2002 through 2004, and
decreased to about 15,000 in fiscal year 2006. From fiscal years 2000
through 2006, the average number of days from filing the appeal to the
decision's being rendered decreased each year, decreasing from about
1,100 days in fiscal year 2000 to about 400 days in fiscal year 2006.
These changes are understandable given that BIA's streamlining
procedures--reducing the number of decision makers, in most cases from
three to one, and reducing the requirements for documenting the
rationale for the decision--could lead to expedited case processing.
Figure 8: Number of BIA Asylum Decisions and Average Time from Filing
of Appeal to Decision, by Fiscal Year of BIA Decision:
This figure is a combination line and bar graph showing the number of
BIA asylum decisions and average time from filing of appeal to
decision, by fiscal year of BIA decision. The X axis represents the
fiscal year of BIA decisions, the left Y axis represents the number,
and the right Y axis represents the days. The bars represent the number
of decisions, and the line represents the average time from appeal to
decision.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1995; Number of decisions: 4695;
Average time from appeal to decision: 668.9.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1996; Number of decisions: 6221;
Average time from appeal to decision: 372.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1997; Number of decisions: 8017;
Average time from appeal to decision: 458.9.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Number of decisions: 12495;
Average time from appeal to decision: 796.8.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Number of decisions: 7017;
Average time from appeal to decision: 966.8.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Number of decisions: 5670;
Average time from appeal to decision: 1092.9.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Number of decisions: 11713;
Average time from appeal to decision: 971.6.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Number of decisions: 22846;
Average time from appeal to decision: 951.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Number of decisions: 23050;
Average time from appeal to decision: 774.2.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Number of decisions: 22103;
Average time from appeal to decision: 443.6.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Number of decisions: 18408;
Average time from appeal to decision: 427.9.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Number of decisions: 15408;
Average time from appeal to decision: 417.1.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
BIA Decisions Favoring Asylum Applicants Decreased, and Decisions by
Single BIA Members Were Less Favorable to Asylum Applicants than
Decisions by Three-Member Panels:
BIA Decisions Favoring Aliens Appealing Asylum Decisions Decreased
Following the March 2002 Streamlining:
BIA decisions favoring the alien in asylum appeals decreased following
the 2002 streamlining. Although there were limitations in the data
maintained by EOIR, we were able to derive general estimates of the
change in outcomes for asylum applicants that were associated with the
2002 streamlining by merging EOIR data on decisions made by immigration
judges with EOIR data on the results of appeals of these decisions to
the BIA.[Footnote 47] BIA decisions favoring the alien in asylum
appeals--including granting asylum, dismissing an appeal by DHS of an
immigration judge's grant of relief through asylum, or remanding the
case to the immigration judge--decreased following the 2002
streamlining, from 21 percent in the period from October 1, 1997,
through March 14, 2002, to 10 percent in the period from March 15,
2002, through September 30, 2006. In addition, the percentage of BIA
decisions granting the alien relief in the form of voluntary departure
from the United States also decreased following the 2002 streamlining,
from 25 percent to 17 percent.[Footnote 48] BIA decisions that favored
DHS (dismissing an applicant's appeal of an immigration judge's asylum
denial) remained constant, at 27 percent in the periods before and
after streamlining. Appeals by aliens and DHS represented 97 percent
and 3 percent, respectively, of BIA's asylum appeals caseload from
October 1997 to September 2006. BIA members used their authority to
issue AWOs in 44 percent of the asylum cases they reviewed--35 percent
without a grant of voluntary departure (with 98 percent of these
resulting in removal orders)--and 9 percent resulting in grants of
voluntary departure (see fig. 9). Overall, 78 percent of AWOs issued by
the BIA after streamlining resulted in removal orders.
Figure 9: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, before and after the March
2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing BIA decisions in asylum
appeals, before and after the March 2002 BIA streamlining reforms. The
X axis represents the outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions, and the
Y axis represents percent of all appeals' outcomes. The bars represent
October 1, 1997 through March 14, 2002, and the time period of March
15, 2002 through September 30, 2008.
Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Favor alien; October 1, 1997
through March 14, 2002: 21.06; March 15, 2002 through September 30,
2008: 10.1.
Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Favor DHS; October 1, 1997
through March 14, 2002: 26.83; March 15, 2002 through September 30,
2008: 26.71.
Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: AWO without voluntary
departure; October 1, 1997 through March 14, 2002: 0.13; March 15, 2002
through September 30, 2008: 34.98.
Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: AWO with voluntary departure;
October 1, 1997 through March 14, 2002: 0.04; March 15, 2002 through
September 30, 2008: 9.37.
Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Voluntary departure; October
1, 1997 through March 14, 2002: 24.54; March 15, 2002 through September
30, 2008: 7.74.
Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Other; October 1, 1997
through March 14, 2002: 27.41; March 15, 2002 through September 30,
2008: 11.1.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
Note: The category "other," encompasses BIA decision categories that
were not readily coded as favoring one or the other appealing party,
nor involved the BIA's AWO procedures or a grant of voluntary
departure. It includes summary dismissals of appeals without briefs
filed, grants of temporary protected status for certain nationals in
specified time periods, cases where the BIA ruled that it did not have
jurisdiction over the appeal, and other categories not clearly related
to a decision on the merits of the appeal. See Appendix I for a
detailed discussion of our coding decision rules.
[End of figure]
The large pre-versus post-2002 differences in BIA decisions, as
illustrated in figure 9, mask some annual variation in outcomes that
occurred during the period covered by our analysis. For example, (1)
the level of use of AWOs without voluntary departure that occurred
after the 2002 streamlining increased for 2 years, and then began to
decrease in recent years; and (2) decisions favorable to DHS fluctuated
from fiscal year 1998 until 2002, with a substantial decrease occurring
between fiscal years 2000 and 2002. Decisions favorable to DHS then
increased substantially in the following 4 years (see fig. 10).
Figure 10: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, by Fiscal Year of BIA
Decision:
This figure is a combination line graph showing BIA decisions in asylum
appeals, by fiscal year of BIA decision. The X axis represents the
fiscal year of BIA decision, and the Y axis represents the percent. The
lines represent voluntary departure, favor alien, favor DHS, other, AWO
without voluntary departure, and AWO with voluntary departure.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Favor alien: 28.74;
Favor DHS: 22.25;
AWO without voluntary departure: 0; AWO with voluntary departure: 0;
Voluntary departure: 38.69;
Other: 10.33.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Favor alien: 19.09;
Favor DHS: 23.27;
AWO without voluntary departure: 0; AWO with voluntary departure: 0;
Voluntary departure: 26.92;
Other: 30.72.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Favor alien: 24.91;
Favor DHS: 38.22;
AWO without voluntary departure: 0.04; AWO with voluntary departure: 0;
Voluntary departure: 17.63;
Other: 19.2.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Favor alien: 16.01;
Favor DHS: 24.46;
AWO without voluntary departure: 0.25; AWO with voluntary departure:
0.07; Voluntary departure: 14.11;
Other: 45.09.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Favor alien: 8.31;
Favor DHS: 15.69;
AWO without voluntary departure: 30.19; AWO with voluntary departure:
15.29; Voluntary departure: 9.18;
Other: 21.33.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Favor alien: 11.05;
Favor DHS: 17.65;
AWO without voluntary departure: 41.97; AWO with voluntary departure:
13.17; Voluntary departure: 6.34;
Other: 9.83.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Favor alien: 8.48;
Favor DHS: 29.9;
AWO without voluntary departure: 39.91; AWO with voluntary departure:
5.32; Voluntary departure: 5.45;
Other: 10.95.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Favor alien: 10.63;
Favor DHS: 37.82;
AWO without voluntary departure: 27.24; AWO with voluntary departure:
4.53; Voluntary departure: 10.88;
Other: 8.9.
Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Favor alien: 14.25;
Favor DHS: 44.7;
AWO without voluntary departure: 20.4; AWO with voluntary departure:
2.43; Voluntary departure: 11.42;
Other: 6.8.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
The decrease in the percentage of BIA asylum decisions favorable to the
alien following the March 2002 streamlining occurred in both
affirmative and defensive asylum cases and was significantly greater
for those who had applied defensively. Among applicants who had applied
for asylum affirmatively, the decreases were significantly larger when
the applicant was represented at the BIA and when the applicant had
dependents.[Footnote 49] Among the group of appellants who had applied
for asylum defensively, those without representation experienced
significantly larger declines in favorable outcomes, as did those who
were not detained. Declines did not differ significantly between
defensive applicants who had dependents and those who did not (see
table 3.)[Footnote 50]
Table 3: BIA Decisions Favoring Asylum Applicants, before and after
March 2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms, by Claimant Characteristics:
Claimant characteristic: All; Percent (of total number) of BIA
decisions favoring affirmative asylum applicants: Pre-Streamlining:
10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 19; (11,667);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 11; (37,957);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 24; (10,063);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/ 15/02 - 9/30/06: 8; (25,385).
Claimant characteristic: Representation; Yes;
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 23; (7,629);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 13; (29,954);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 26; (7,280);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 9; (19,671).
Claimant characteristic: Representation; No;
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 10; (4,038);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 7; (8,003);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 19; (2,783);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 5; (5,714).
Claimant characteristic: Dependents; Yes;
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 24; (956);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 10; (5,689);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 29; (402);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 10; (1,048).
Claimant characteristic: Dependents; No;
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 18; (10,711);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 12; (32,268);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 24; (9,661);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 8; (24,337).
Claimant characteristic: Currently detained; Yes;
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 8; (124);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 11; (175);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 13; (2,491);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 7; (3,271).
Claimant characteristic: Currently detained; No;
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 19; (11,543);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 11; (37,782);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 28; (7,572);
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 8; (22,114).
Source: GAO Analysis of EOIR data.
Note: Numbers in the table are the total numbers of applicants on which
the percentages are based.
[End of table]
Single Member BIA Decisions Were Associated with Less Favorable
Outcomes for Asylum Applicants than Three-Member Panel Decisions:
Of all BIA decisions in asylum appeals from fiscal years 2004 through
2006, 92 percent of decisions were made by single BIA members, of which
7 percent of these favored the alien.[Footnote 51] (See table 4.) In
contrast, 8 percent of decisions were made by panels, with 52 percent
of these decisions favoring the alien. Although the percent of appeals
favoring the alien increased significantly over this time period both
for single-member decisions and three-member panel decisions, the
increase in favorable decisions made by three-member panels was
significantly greater and doubled during that period.
Table 4: BIA Asylum Decisions Favoring Alien Made by Three-Member
Panels versus Single Members, Post 2002 Streamlining:
Type of decision: Three-member panel; Fiscal year 2004: Percentage
(number) of total decisions made: 9; (1,326);
Fiscal year 2004: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien:
37; (497);
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 7;
(793);
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien:
54; (432);
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 8;
(804);
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien:
74; (591);
Fiscal years 2004-2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 8;
(2,923);
Fiscal years 2004-2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to
alien: 52; (1,520).
Type of decision: Single member; Fiscal year 2004: Percentage (number)
of total decisions made: 91; (13,291);
Fiscal year 2004: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien:
6; (742);
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 93;
(10,055);
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien:
7; (721);
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 92;
(9,042);
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien:
9; (812);
Fiscal years 2004- 2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made:
92; (32,388);
Fiscal years 2004-2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to
alien: 7; (2,275).
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of table]
EOIR Has Been Making Additional Changes to the BIA Adjudication Process
as a Result of the Attorney General's Review:
Following a 2006 review of the immigration courts and the BIA, the
Attorney General directed EOIR to undertake regulatory changes to the
streamlining rules with the intent of improving BIA adjudicatory
procedures. In June 2008, EOIR published proposed regulations for
comment in the Federal Register.[Footnote 52] The regulations are
intended to codify the discretion that BIA members have in deciding
whether to write opinions or issue AWOs. BIA officials told us that the
BIA believed it always had this discretion under the 2002 streamlining
regulations and had already begun to issue more written opinions. The
regulations also propose to expand the criteria for the referral of
appeals to three-member panels, allowing a single BIA member to refer a
case to a three-member panel when the case presents a particularly
complex, novel, or unusual legal or factual issue.
Additionally, following the Attorney General's review, EOIR published
an interim rule in December 2006 increasing the size of the BIA by 4
members from the 11 members authorized by the 2002 streamlining to 15
members, and expanding the list of persons eligible to serve as
temporary BIA members.[Footnote 53] The rule became final in June
2008.[Footnote 54] One of DOJ's stated reasons for the increase was to
put the BIA in the best position to implement the Attorney General's
directives encouraging the increased use of one-member written opinions
and three-member panel decisions. Between December 2006 and May 2008,
the number of permanent members did not exceed nine members, although
EOIR stated that the BIA has used between two and five temporary
members at any one time to help manage the caseload on a temporary
basis. In May 2008, the BIA had 8 members, and the Attorney General
appointed 5 new members, bringing the total number to 13. It is too
soon to tell how these regulatory changes might affect outcomes for
asylum appellants.
Data Limitations Precluded Determining the Effects of the 1-Year Rule
and the Resources Expended Adjudicating It:
Data limitations prevented us from determining the effects of the 1-
year rule and the resources spent adjudicating it. EOIR does not
collect data that would enable us to determine the effects of the 1-
year rule on the filing of fraudulent asylum applications or on
immigration judge decisions to deny asylum because of it. DHS and DOJ
do not maintain records on how much time asylum officers, immigration
judges, and DHS attorneys spend addressing issues related to the rule.
Data Were Not Available to Assess the Effects of the 1-Year Rule on
Fraudulent Applications and Denials:
We could not determine the effects of the 1-year rule on the filing of
fraudulent asylum applications or on immigration judge decisions to
deny asylum because data were not available to conduct such analyses.
Currently, EOIR does not collect data related to the effect of the 1-
year rule on asylum decisions and applicants because, according to
agency officials, EOIR's mission of fair and prompt adjudication of
immigration proceedings has not required its staff to track data on the
legal basis for the decisions. Therefore, it remains unknown what
impact the 1 year filing deadline may have had on asylum fraud or the
extent to which this deadline may have prevented asylum seekers with a
well-founded fear of persecution from being granted asylum.
It is difficult to assess the effect of the 1-year rule on reducing
fraud because good measures of deterring fraudulent behavior are not
available, and the presence of fraud is generally difficult to identify
and prove. In contrast, it was difficult to assess the effect of the 1-
year rule on asylum denials because EOIR does not maintain automated
data on the reasons underlying immigration judge decisions. DHS does
maintain data on whether the affirmative asylum cases it decides are
referred to immigration court because of the 1-year rule. However, the
data do not shed light on whether the 1-year rule was the only reason
for referring a case to immigration court or whether it was one of
several possible reasons.
DHS data show that from fiscal years 1999 through 2006, asylum officers
referred about 64,000 cases to immigration court based at least in part
on the 1-year rule. During this period, cases referred by asylum
officers to immigration court based on the 1-year rule, as a percent of
total cases interviewed and referred by asylum officers, peaked in
fiscal years 2001 through 2003 at around 43 to 45 percent, as shown in
table 5.
Table 5: Asylum Cases Referred at Least in Part on the 1-Year Rule by
DHS Asylum Officers to Immigration Judges, by Fiscal Year:
Fiscal year: 1999;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 37,896; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 19,422; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 3,876; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
20.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 46,340; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 19,577; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 6,032; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
31.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 62,871; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 25,126; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 11,188; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
45.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 64,644; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 31,789; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 13,699; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
43.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 46,945; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 26,185; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 11,131; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
43.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 34,170; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 19,762; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 7,159; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
36.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 32,899; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 18,835; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 6,307; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
33.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 36,510; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 19,265; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 4,532; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
24.
Fiscal year: Total;
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 362,275; Total interviewed cases referred
to immigration judge: 179,961; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 63,924; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred:
36.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS Asylum Office data.
[End of table]
However, the total number of cases referred by asylum officers to
immigration judges constitutes only a portion of all the asylum cases
in which the 1-year rule was adjudicated in the immigration courts. In
the absence of EOIR data, our 2007 survey asked immigration judges to
estimate the frequency and outcomes of their asylum cases that involved
the 1-year rule during the past year. Nearly all (98 percent) of the
respondents said the 1-year issue (questions about the date of entry or
eligibility for exceptions to the rule) had to be resolved in at least
some of the asylum cases they adjudicated, including 55 percent who
said the rule was an issue in about one-half or more of their cases.
Further, 85 percent of the respondents said they denied asylum in some
of the cases they had heard in the past year (including 12 percent who
said they had denied asylum in about one-half or more of their cases)
because they found that the applicant was ineligible because of the 1-
year rule.
Data Were Not Available to Determine the Amount of Resources Expended
In Adjudicating the 1-Year Rule:
We could not determine the amount of resources spent adjudicating
asylum cases related to the 1-year rule because DHS and DOJ do not
maintain records on how much time asylum officers, immigration judges,
and DHS attorneys spend addressing issues related to the rule. We asked
immigration judges in our 2007 nationwide survey to provide estimates
of the average amount of time they spent adjudicating the 1-year rule,
and these ranged from less than 30 minutes to more than 2 hours. The
majority of survey respondents (79 percent) said that adjudicating the
rule took less than an hour; 15 percent, between 1 hour and less than 2
hours; 2.5 percent, 2 hours or more.
Immigrant advocates have argued that it is important to have data on
how many applicants are denied asylum based on the 1-year rule because
such applicants may have a well-founded fear of persecution, as do
asylees, but they must meet a higher standard to remain in the United
States; that is, to be granted a "withholding from removal."[Footnote
55] Withholding from removal is a less favorable outcome than a grant
of asylum because it confers fewer immigration benefits, including the
inability to bring a spouse and minor children to the United States for
family reunification. EOIR has stated that gathering historical data on
the impact of the 1-year rule on applicants and their dependents would
present difficulties for the agency because, among other things, (1)
gathering this data would be prohibitively resource intensive to
retrieve, transcribe, and review audio recordings of immigration
hearings, which are typically transcribed only if the case is appealed
to the BIA and (2) such an effort may not produce the desired result
because immigration judges often address the merits of asylum cases in
alternative findings so that the determinative basis for the ultimate
denial is unclear. EOIR officials stated that they believed that of
those cases where the 1-year rule is a factor in the immigration
judge's denial of asylum, in most cases it is only one reason for
denial. EOIR stated that gathering prospective data on the impact of
the 1-year rule would involve considerable cost in that gathering this
data would require changes in EOIR's administrative processing and data
tracking systems.
If the Congress believes it is important for EOIR to begin collecting
data on the impact of the 1-year rule on asylum decisions, the
applicants, and their dependents, it would need to direct EOIR to
develop a cost effective method for carrying this effort out. For such
data collection activities to result in useful data, Congress would
have to direct EOIR to develop mechanisms to directly capture the key
elements underlying an immigration judge's decision, so that analysts
would be able to identify those instances in which the 1-year rule was
the determinative basis in the decision.
Conclusions:
We found large differences in asylum decisions among immigration
judges. Our analysis used more comprehensive statistical procedures,
examined a longer period of time, and had data on more potential
explanatory factors than the analyses reported in EOIR's grant rate
studies. Because data were not available on the facts, evidence, and
testimony presented in each asylum case, nor on immigration judges'
rationale for deciding whether to grant or deny a case, we could not
measure the effect of case merits on case outcomes. However, the size
of the disparities in asylum grant rates creates a perception of
unfairness in the asylum adjudication process within the immigration
court system.
We commend EOIR for taking actions to collect information on the
variation of asylum outcomes across immigration judges and to attempt
to integrate that information into its oversight of immigration judges.
However, we believe that EOIR's grant rate studies have weaknesses that
limit their ability to identify immigration judges who have unusually
high or low rates in the granting of asylum. Although EOIR has
attempted to take into account a few of the factors that may be
associated with variation in asylum grant rates among immigration
judges, we believe that the statistical methods we applied to EOIR's
data provide a more complete, accurate, and useful picture of asylum
rulings for the immigration judges included in our analysis. Without
statistically controlling for factors that could affect asylum
decisions, including variations in the types of cases immigration
judges adjudicate, some of the immigration judges who EOIR's grant rate
studies determined to be unusually high granters and deniers of asylum
may actually be less extreme than they appear, while others who do not
appear to be outliers may actually be more extreme after statistical
adjustment. Consequently, some immigration judges identified as needing
supervisory assistance and attention when EOIR uses its grant rate
results in combination with other performance indicators may sometimes
not be the same individuals who are identified once certain factors
associated with asylum decisions are taken into account. We recognize
that decisions about whether and which immigration judges' skills need
improvement should not depend entirely on statistical disparities in
asylum decisions, as there are other indicators (including high remand
and reversal rates) that should be taken into account in making such
decisions. Nevertheless, we believe that the information we produced,
in conjunction with other indicators of immigration judge performance
that EOIR is collecting and considers to be important, would put EOIR
in a better position to identify immigration judges who would benefit
from supervisory attention and assistance.
While the information we produced through our analyses can be useful to
EOIR for a limited amount of time, it represents an analysis of
immigration judges' decisions during a 12 ½ year period ending in April
2007. As time goes on, there will be turnover in immigration judges,
changes in country conditions that will prompt changes in the
composition of applicants seeking asylum in this country, and possibly
other unanticipated changes that could affect variability in asylum
outcomes. Periodic updates using the types of multivariate analyses
that we did would provide EOIR with a more complete, accurate, and
useful picture of immigration judge decision making over time than the
current approach. These analyses would also facilitate EOIR's goal of
using data on grants and denials, in combination with other information
about immigration judges, to identify those whose skills may need to be
improved through training or other means. We recognize that EOIR
currently does not have the expertise or the budget to perform
sophisticated statistical analyses and that acquiring the expertise
would involve some cost. We believe that such an effort should be
considered, however, because ensuring both the reality and perception
of fairness in the asylum system is a worthwhile goal.
With regard to supervision, EOIR has made efforts to improve oversight
and management of the immigration courts by redeploying some ACIJs from
headquarters to field locations. However, EOIR has not determined how
many ACIJs it needs to effectively supervise immigration judges, and it
has not provided ACIJs with guidance on how to carry out their
supervisory role. We believe that building blocks of an effective
management system involve allocating the right number of resources and
delineating the responsibilities of individuals tasked with carrying
out supervisory functions. Doing so would put EOIR in a better position
to monitor immigration judge performance and take appropriate action to
correct or prevent immigration judge performance issues that may arise.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To address disparities in asylum outcomes that may be unwarranted and
to facilitate EOIR's goal of identifying immigration judges who may
benefit from supplemental efforts to improve their performance, we
recommend that EOIR's Chief Immigration Judge take the following two
actions:
* Utilize the information from our multivariate statistical analyses to
identify which immigration judges remained many times more or less
likely to grant asylum than others, after accounting for claimant and
immigration judge characteristics.
* Identify and examine cost-effective options (e.g., developing an in-
house capability or hiring a private contractor) for acquiring the
expertise needed to perform periodic multivariate statistical analyses
of immigration judges' asylum decisions.
In addition, to more fully respond to the Attorney General's directive
to strengthen management and oversight of immigration courts, we
recommend that EOIR's Chief Immigration Judge:
* develop a plan for supervisory immigration judges, to include an
assessment of the resources and guidance needed to ensure that
immigration judges receive effective supervision.
Agency Comments:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ and DHS. DOJ
and DHS did not provide official written comments to include in our
report. However, on September 11, 2008, EOIR's liaison stated that EOIR
agreed with our recommendations. EOIR also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. In an email
received on September 19, 2008, DHS's liaison stated that DHS had no
comments on the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the interested congressional
committees, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland
Security. 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, GAO 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 V.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our reporting objectives were to (1) identify what factors affected the
variability in asylum outcomes in immigration courts; (2) identify what
actions DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has taken
to assist applicants in obtaining legal representation and immigration
judges in rendering asylum decisions, and how, if at all, these actions
could be improved; (3) determine what changes in asylum backlogs and
outcomes occurred following the streamlining of appeals procedures at
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and (4) identify what
information existed on the effects of the 1-year rule on reducing
fraudulent asylum applications and preventing applicants from being
granted asylum and what resources have been expended in adjudicating
it.
To address the first and third objectives, we obtained and analyzed
over 12 years of EOIR data on asylum outcomes in the immigration courts
and at the BIA. Our methods for obtaining and analyzing these data are
described below. Prior to developing and analyzing the EOIR data, we
assessed the reliability of each data source and used only the data
that we found to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
report. The actions we took to reach this conclusion are described in
detail below.
To address our fourth objective, we also surveyed from May through July
2007 the 207 immigration judges who had been in their positions since
at least September 30, 2006, and elicited responses from them regarding
the challenges they faced in adjudicating the 1-year rule. In addition,
we obtained from DHS data on the number of applicants referred to
immigration court from the Asylum Division in fiscal years 1999 through
2007, and the percentage of referrals for which the 1-year rule was the
stated reason for referral.
To address all four of our objectives, we also analyzed research on
factors affecting asylum outcomes; reviewed DOJ documents covering
asylum policies and procedures; interviewed agency officials at
headquarters and in the field; and visited three of the four largest
immigration courts in the country, ranked in terms of asylum decisions
in fiscal year 2006--New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco--and
two smaller immigration courts handling large percentages of cases of
aliens in detention--Varick Street in New York City, and San Pedro,
Calif.--where we spoke with immigration judges, court administrators,
attorneys representing asylum applicants and for DHS, and
representatives of immigrant advocacy groups. We also observed removal
hearings. Because we selected nonprobablity samples of immigration
courts and stakeholders associated with these immigration courts, the
information we obtained at these locations may not be generalized
either within the immigration courts or to all immigration courts
nationwide. However, the information we obtained at these locations
provided us with a perspective on circumstances associated with asylum
proceedings.
Factors Affecting Variability in Asylum Outcomes in Immigration Court:
Analysis of Data on Immigration Judge Decisions:
We used logistic regression multivariate statistical models to examine
all decisions rendered by immigration judges from October 1, 1994,
through April 30, 2007, that involved asylum seekers from the 20
countries that produced the most asylum cases and the 19 immigration
courts that handled the largest numbers of asylum cases. Each of the 20
countries and 19 immigration courts contributed a minimum of 800
affirmative and 800 defensive asylum cases to our analyses. The results
of our analysis cannot be generalized to asylum seekers from other
countries or to other immigration courts. Our statistical models are
described in more detail in appendixes II and III.
To compile the data for analysis, we (1) obtained from EOIR, records of
all immigration court proceedings that occurred during the period
covered by the study, (2) selected those records where the immigration
judge made the first decision on the asylum application (eliminating
decisions rendered following appeals), (3) selected only the records
for "lead" applicants (eliminating duplicate decisions for a spouse and
dependent children), and (4) selected the immigration courts and
countries that contributed a minimum of 800 cases. We then (5) obtained
biographical information from EOIR on those immigration judges who had
served during the time period of the study, and (6) merged these data
with the EOIR proceedings data to produce a combined dataset for
analysis that contained proceedings records with information on the
characteristics of the applicants, the immigration judges, the
immigration courts, and the decision rendered on the applicants' asylum
applications.
Because we were interested in those proceedings in which the
immigration judge made an asylum decision without any review or
direction from the BIA, we limited our analysis data set to only those
proceedings with records that included the first decision on the merits
of the asylum case made by an immigration judge.
Data on Immigration Judge Characteristics:
EOIR provided us biographical information, including prior employment
history and prior immigration court assignments, for 284 of the 295
immigration judges who had made asylum decisions during the period of
our study. We obtained additional biographical information on four
immigration judges by conducting searches on the Internet and confirmed
the accuracy of this additional information with EOIR. We obtained data
on immigration judges' race/ethnicity, gender, age, and veteran status
from the Office of Personnel Management's database on federal civilian
personnel, the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). Table 6 below lists
the variables used in our analysis and the source of the data.
Table 6: Variables Used in GAO Analyses of Factors Affecting Asylum
Outcomes:
Variable: Asylum decision;
Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Immigration court in which the asylum decision was made; Data
source: EOIR.
Variable: Immigration judge (name and code); Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Nationality of asylum seeker; Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Asylum case type;
* Affirmative (filed with Asylum Office);
* Defensive (filed at immigration court); Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Representation;
* Represented by counsel recognized to practice in immigration court;
* Not represented;
Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Dependents;
* Has one or more dependents;
* Has no dependents;
Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Time period during which the case was adjudicated; 1. 10/1/
1994 - 3/31/1997;
2. 4/1/1997 - 9/10/2001;
3. 9/11/2001 - 4/30/2007;
Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Detention status (defensive cases, only);
* Currently or previously detained;
* Never detained;
Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Application filed within 1 year of entry;
* Yes;
* No;
* Date of initial application or date of entry missing in EOIR data;
Data source: EOIR.
Variable: Gender of immigration judge;
* Case adjudicated by male immigration judge;
* Case adjudicated by female immigration judge; Data source: CPDF.
Variable: Age of immigration judge at the time of adjudication;
* Case adjudicated by immigration judge 50 years-old or older;
* Case adjudicated by immigration judge less than 50 years-old; Data
source: CPDF.
Variable: Race/ethnicity of immigration judge;
* Case adjudicated by white, nonHispanic immigration judge;
* Case adjudicated by all other immigration judges; Data source: CPDF.
Variable: Immigration judge has prior government-related immigration
experience;
* Yes;
* No;
Data source: EOIR biographies.
Variable: Immigration judge has prior experience doing immigration work
for a nonprofit organization;
* Yes;
* No;
Data source: EOIR biographies.
Variable: Length of service as an immigration judge at time of
adjudication;
* 3.49 years or less;
* 3.5 - 9.9 years;
* 10 years or more;
Data source: EOIR and CPDF.
Variable: Party of the administration under which the immigration judge
was appointed;
* Democratic;
* Republican;
Data source: CPDF.
Variable: Veteran status;
* Veteran preference;
* No veteran preference;
Data source: CPDF.
Variable: Immigration judge caseload (number of decisions rendered in
all types of cases in the 90 days preceding case adjudication);
* Cases decided by immigration judges with a caseload of < 30 cases;
* Cases decided by immigration judges with a caseload of 30-64 cases;
* Cases decided by immigration judges with a caseload of more than 64
cases; Data source: EOIR.
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR and CPDF data.
[End of table]
Data Analysis:
The likelihood of a grant of asylum was the dependent variable in most
of our analyses. To measure the effect of factors that could explain
the variability in asylum outcomes, we modeled the effect of claimant,
immigration judge, and immigration court characteristics on case
outcome. We conducted separate analyses for affirmative and defensive
cases in our sample to control for characteristics shared by cases in
each of those groups that could affect case outcomes, such as whether
the asylum application had already been reviewed by an asylum officer.
Data limitations prevented us from controlling for factors other than
those listed in table 6 that could have contributed to variability in
case outcomes. The models we used are described in more detail in
appendixes II and III.
Reliability of the Immigration Court and Immigration Judge Data:
Prior to developing our database, we assessed the reliability of the
EOIR data and the immigration judges' biographical data. To assess the
reliability of the EOIR data, we (1) performed electronic testing for
obvious errors in accuracy and completeness; (2) analyzed related
documentation, including EOIR's Automated Nationwide System for
Immigration Review (ANSIR) Field User Manual, and ANSIR Court
Administrators Handbook, a 2002 KPMG study of the reliability of
selected EOIR fields,[Footnote 56] and published research reports that
made use of the EOIR data;[Footnote 57] and (3) worked with agency
officials to identify any data problems. When we found apparent
discrepancies (such as fields containing what appeared to be erroneous
data), we brought them to the agency's attention and worked with agency
officials and data experts to understand the data. We assessed the
reliability of the immigration judge biographical data by checking a
selection of fields in our database against information contained in
the CPDF. Where direct comparison of the data was not possible, we
brought data that appeared to be erroneous to EOIR's attention, and
updated our records where appropriate. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.
Agency Interviews and Site Visits:
To gain a better understanding of factors affecting asylum
adjudications and the reliability and validity of EOIR data on asylum
adjudications, we interviewed EOIR headquarters officials responsible
for overseeing the immigration courts, including the Chief Immigration
Judge and Deputy Chief Immigration Judges; and the Assistant Director
of EOIR's Office of Planning, Analysis and Technology, which is
responsible for EOIR's information technology, program evaluation,
statistical analysis, and reporting activities.
To obtain an overview of and perspectives on the asylum process, we
visited five immigration courts in three cities--Los Angeles and San
Pedro in Los Angeles, Calif; New York City and Varick Street in New
York, NY; and San Francisco, Calif. These immigration courts handled 43
percent of all asylum cases decided in fiscal year 2006, and consisted
of two immigration courts that handled large percentages of detained
cases (San Pedro and Varick Street), and three immigration courts that
handled primarily non-detained cases (Los Angeles, New York City, and
San Francisco). In each immigration court, we observed immigration
proceedings, which included initial master calendar and merit hearings
on asylum cases. We conducted semi-structured interviews with the ACIJ
with responsibility for the immigration courts we visited. In addition,
we interviewed a total of 22 immigration judges representing a range of
grant rates in the five immigration courts. To further our
understanding, including how cases are allocated to immigration judges
and how data on immigration proceedings are recorded in EOIR's case
management system, we interviewed the court administrator of each of
the five immigration courts we visited.[Footnote 58] In the three
cities, we also interviewed (1) seven ICE Assistant Chief Counsels
(known as ICE trial attorneys) with varying levels of experience
prosecuting asylum cases in the five immigration courts. We also
interviewed the Deputy Chief Counsels in the Los Angeles, New York, and
San Francisco immigration courts; (2) six members of the private bar
who represented asylum applicants in immigration court proceedings; and
(3) groups of immigration advocates and pro bono providers, totaling 25
participants across the three cities. Because we selected
nonprobability samples of immigration courts and stakeholders
associated with these courts, the information we obtained at these
locations may not be generalized either within immigration courts or to
all immigration courts nationwide. However, the information we obtained
at these locations provided us with a perspective on circumstances
associated with asylum proceedings.
EOIR Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges:
To identify what actions EOIR has taken to assist applicants and
immigration judges in the asylum process and how, if at all, these
actions could be improved, we reviewed the Attorney General's 2006
directives to institute reforms in the immigration courts and BIA, and
obtained information from EOIR regarding its implementation of the
directives. Regarding initiatives designed to assist applicants, we
reviewed the Vera Institute of Justice's evaluation of EOIR's Legal
Orientation Program[Footnote 59] and the BIA's evaluation of its pro
bono program[Footnote 60] as well as the Office of Chief Immigration
Judge's "Guidelines for Facilitating Pro Bono Legal Services."[Footnote
61] Regarding actions to assist immigration judges in adjudicating
asylum cases, we reviewed EOIR's Operating Policy and Procedure
Memorandums on Asylum Request Processing, and Immigration Judges
Decisions and Immigration Judge Orders, among others; training
materials for new immigration judges, including the agenda and
materials from EOIR's 2007 annual Immigration Judges Training
conference; the Immigration Judge Benchbook, and the legal examination
administered to new immigration judges. We also interviewed EOIR's ACIJ
for Conduct and Professionalism and ACIJ for Training as well as the
coordinator for EOIR's Legal Orientation and Pro Bono Program,
regarding the implementation of the Attorney General's 2006 directives.
To obtain information on EOIR's studies of immigration judge grant
rates, we interviewed knowledgeable EOIR officials, and obtained
documentation on the data queries EOIR conducted to determine the grant
rates.
Did the Asylum Backlog and Asylum Outcomes Change Following BIA
Streamlining?
Analysis of Changes in the BIA Backlog:
To examine what changes in asylum backlogs and outcomes occurred at the
BIA following the streamlining changes implemented in March
2002,[Footnote 62] we (1) obtained from EOIR records of all appeals of
immigration judge decisions received or completed between October 1,
1994, and September 30, 2007,[Footnote 63] and (3) selected only those
records pertaining to lead applicants. For each fiscal year from 1995
through 2007, we computed the "pending caseload" as the number of
appeals received during the current fiscal year or any prior fiscal
year that had not been completed by the end of the current fiscal year.
We repeated this analysis for those appeals involving aliens who had
filed an asylum application in immigration court.
Analysis of Changes in Outcomes for Asylum Applicants:
To determine if the proportion of decisions favorable to the asylum
applicant changed following the March 2002 streamlining, we merged the
BIA appeals records with the immigration proceedings records compiled
for objective 1 and conducted a series of descriptive analyses
comparing the outcomes of BIA decisions before and after the
streamlined procedures took effect.
For our analysis of appeals outcomes, we limited our analysis data set
to appeals (1) pertaining to lead applicants who had filed an asylum
application in immigration court and (2) involving immigration judge
decisions in removal, deportation, and exclusion hearings (what the BIA
refers to as "Case Appeals") rather than other kinds of appeals arising
from immigration judge proceedings.[Footnote 64] These appeals
accounted for 58 percent of all decisions stemming from appeals of
immigration judge proceedings during fiscal year 2007. We matched the
resulting set of BIA records with the database of immigration judge
asylum decisions developed for objective 1. If more than one BIA case
appeal record was associated with a single immigration judge decision,
we selected the case appeal that occurred first in order to eliminate
BIA decisions that resulted from a remand order from the U.S. courts of
appeals.
We examined BIA decisions for fiscal years 1998 through 2006. We chose
this time period because the starting point for our immigration judge
data was October 1994, and a BIA appeal could take an average of 1 to 2
years to complete. We did not examine BIA decisions from fiscal year
2007 because we did not have immigration judge data for the full fiscal
year.
To examine asylum appeals that BIA decided on the merits of the case,
we analyzed only those cases where the appeal had been filed in a
timely fashion, within 30 days of the decision rendered by the
immigration judge. We selected only cases that involved applicants who
had filed for asylum, rather than other forms of relief, to help ensure
that the immigration judge's asylum decision was likely a central focus
of the appeal.
In order to correctly categorize whether the BIA decision favored the
alien or DHS, we had numerous meetings with EOIR officials and data
specialists regarding the meaning of EOIR's codes for decisions
rendered by the BIA. EOIR stated that its data system did not capture
the specific issue on appeal to the BIA, and thus it would be difficult
to determine whether some BIA decisions favored the alien or the DHS
without examining the actual record of appeal. In other cases,
according to EOIR, the decision could be identified as favoring the
alien or DHS, if the decision field were examined simultaneously with
other data elements, including the party that had filed the appeal and
the decision of the immigration judge on the asylum application. In
those cases where it was not possible to determine from the EOIR data
if the decision favored the alien or DHS, we coded the BIA decision as
neither favoring the alien nor favoring DHS (such as in the case of an
Affirmance without Opinion without a grant of Voluntary Departure). In
those cases, we looked further to determine whether a formal order of
removal had been entered by the BIA. Our coding scheme is detailed in
table 7, below.
Table 7: Coding Scheme for BIA Decision Outcomes:
BIA decision code: Background check remand; Which party filed appeal:
Alien; Immigration judge asylum decision: Deny WH, CAT (persecution
decision is deny); GAO outcome code: Favor alien.
BIA decision code: Background check remand; Which party filed appeal:
DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant; GAO outcome code: Favor
alien.
BIA decision code: Remand;
Which party filed appeal: Alien; Immigration judge asylum decision:
Deny; GAO outcome code: Favor Alien.
BIA decision code: Coercive Population Control grant; deferred enforced
departure; termination;
Which party filed appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum
decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome code: Favor alien.
BIA decision code: Dismissal; Which party filed appeal: DHS;
Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant; GAO outcome code: Favor
alien.
BIA decision code: Dismissal; Which party filed appeal: Alien;
Immigration judge asylum decision: Deny; GAO outcome code: Favor DHS.
BIA decision code: Summary dismissal for "other" reason; Which party
filed appeal: Alien; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny;
GAO outcome code: Favor DHS.
BIA decision code: Dismissal, Matter of Soriano; Which party filed
appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny;
GAO outcome code: Favor DHS.
BIA decision code: Summary affirmance; Which party filed appeal: Alien
or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome
code: Affirmance without Opinion (AWO) with no voluntary departure.
BIA decision code: Summary affirmance, voluntary departure; Which party
filed appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or
deny; GAO outcome code: Affirmance without Opinion (AWO) with voluntary
departure granted.
BIA decision code: Voluntary departure; Which party filed appeal: Alien
or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome
code: Voluntary departure (not including those cases, above, where AWO
was issued along with a grant of voluntary departure).
BIA decision code: Remand;
Which party filed appeal: DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision:
Grant; GAO outcome code: Other.
BIA decision code: Sustain appeal; summary dismissal (no brief filed,
inadequate reason on appeal) no jurisdiction; Temporary Protected
Status;; withdrawal of appeal;
Other;
Which party filed appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum
decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome code: Other.
BIA decision code: Summary dismissal for "other" reason; Which party
filed appeal: DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny;
GAO outcome code: Other.
Source: GAO Analysis of EOIR data.
[End of table]
Reliability of Data on BIA Appeals:
We assessed the reliability of the EOIR's data on BIA asylum appeals
decisions by (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in
accuracy and completeness; (2) analyzing related documentation,
including a 2002 KPMG study of the reliability of selected EOIR fields
and published research reports that made use of the data sources; and
(3) working closely with agency officials to identify any data
problems. When we found apparent discrepancies (such as fields
containing what appeared to be erroneous data) we brought them to the
agency's attention and worked with it to understand the discrepancies
before conducting our analyses. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.
Reliability of Data on Panel versus Single-Member BIA Decisions:
We examined the outcomes of appeals that were decided by single BIA
members and by panels of three members. Based on our analysis of the
field indexing who made the decision and further discussions with EOIR
data specialists, we determined that the reliability of the field
indexing single versus panel decisions was unknown for years prior to
fiscal year 2004 and was most reliable since fiscal year 2004, because
of extensive training provided to the BIA staff. Thus, we examined
outcomes for fiscal years 2004 through 2006.
Document Review and Interviews with Agency Officials:
To gain a better understanding of the procedural changes in
adjudication procedures that have occurred at the BIA since 1999
(referred to as "Streamlining"), we reviewed the streamlining
regulations;[Footnote 65] memorandums issued by the BIA Chairman
between November 2000 and August 2002 expanding the categories of
appeals for which streamlined procedures were authorized;[Footnote 66]
two independent assessments of the 1999 and 2002 procedural
changes;[Footnote 67] and an analysis of the association between the
change in procedures at the BIA and the increase in petitions for
review of these decisions in the U.S. courts of appeal.[Footnote 68] We
also interviewed the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the BIA; officials
from DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), which handles and
coordinates all federal court litigation arising under the Immigration
and Nationality Act, including petitions for review in the federal
courts; and Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of New
York. Until recently, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern
District of New York handled all alien petitions for review in the 2nd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We also interviewed seven federal
appeals court judges who were available and agreed to meet with us in
the two circuits handling the largest number of petitions for review of
BIA decisions (the 2nd and 9th circuits).
Information on the 1-Year Rule:
To address issues regarding the effects of the 1-year rule and
resources expended adjudicating it, we added questions about
immigration judges' views of the 1-year rule to a Web-based survey of
immigration judges that was being conducted as part of another GAO
review.[Footnote 69] The survey was sent to all immigration judges
identified as having been in their position since at least September
30, 2006--a total of 207 immigration judges. GAO social science survey
specialists along with GAO staff knowledgeable about asylum
adjudications developed the survey instrument. We sent a draft of the
survey to EOIR officials and ACIJs for preliminary review to ensure
that our questions were clear and unambiguous and used clear
terminology and appropriate response options, and that the survey was
comprehensive and unbiased. We also asked for and received comments
from National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) representatives
on the draft immigration judge survey. We considered comments and
suggestions from all parties and made revisions where we thought
warranted. We conducted telephone pretests of the survey with three
immigration judges in three different immigration courts to ensure that
the questions were clear and concise, and refined the instrument based
on feedback we received. The survey, which was conducted between May 30
and July 29, 2007, resulted in a response rate of 77 percent. In
analyzing the survey data, we generated descriptive statistics on the
close-ended survey responses and had two GAO analysts review all of the
open-ended responses.
To review information on how many cases were referred to the
immigration courts by DHS asylum officers, we obtained data from
USCIS's Asylum Division. To assess the reliability of these data, we
reviewed existing information about the Asylum Division's data systems
and reviewed the data for obvious errors in accuracy or completeness.
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for presenting
overall trends in 1-year rule referrals. We did not report data for
fiscal year 2007 because we were unable to verify these data with the
data from another Asylum Division report.
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 II: Differences in Asylum Grant Rates across Immigration
Courts:
In this appendix, we present descriptive information on how immigration
judge decisions differed for affirmative and defensive cases as a
function of the asylum seeker's nationality, the immigration court, and
time period the asylum case was heard in, and whether the asylum seeker
was represented, had dependents, and applied for asylum within a year
of entering the country. For defensive cases, we further considered
whether the asylum seeker had ever been detained. We also provide
statistical results from logistic regression models that estimated the
effects of these different factors to determine whether differences in
decisions across immigration courts persisted after these other factors
were controlled.
Our analyses included all asylum cases decided from October 1, 1994,
through April 30, 2007, that involved asylum seekers from the 20
countries that produced the most asylum cases and the 19 immigration
courts that handled the largest numbers of asylum cases. Each of the 20
countries and 19 immigration courts contributed a minimum of 800 asylum
cases to our analyses. The 20 countries represented 73 percent of all
asylum cases that were decided during this period, and the 19
immigration courts represented 87 percent of all asylum cases. This
combination of countries and immigration courts yielded slightly more
than 198,000 cases for our analyses, which constituted 66 percent of
all asylum cases decided during this period. We excluded roughly 4
percent of these cases because they had missing data on one or more of
the variables we used in our analyses.
Overall Grant and Denial Rates:
Table 8 shows the numbers and percentages of affirmative and defensive
asylum cases across the countries and immigration courts analyzed that
were granted and denied, with the denied cases broken out separately
according to whether or not the asylum decision was made in absentia
(that is, the asylum seeker failed to appear before the immigration
judge). Asylum denials were far more frequent than grants, with
immigration judges granting less than 30 percent of either affirmative
or defensive asylum cases. They granted asylum in a somewhat higher
percentage of affirmative cases (29.8 percent) than defensive cases
(24.7 percent). The percentage of affirmative cases denied because the
asylum seeker was in absentia was much higher for affirmative cases
(19.0 percent) than for defensive cases (3.8 percent).
Table 8: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied:
Type of asylum case: Affirmative; Asylum decision: Granted: 37,266;
Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 23,741; Asylum decision: Denied-
not in absentia: 63,965; Asylum decision: Total: 124,972.
Type of asylum case: Affirmative; Asylum decision: Granted: 29.8;
Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 19.0; Asylum decision: Denied-not
in absentia: 51.2; Asylum decision: Total: 100.
Type of asylum case: Defensive; Asylum decision: Granted: 16,180;
Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 2,486; Asylum decision: Denied-not
in absentia: 46,838; Asylum decision: Total: 65,504.
Type of asylum case: Defensive; Asylum decision: Granted: 24.7; Asylum
decision: Denied-in absentia: 3.8; Asylum decision: Denied-not in
absentia: 71.5; Asylum decision: Total: 100.
Type of asylum case: Total;
Asylum decision: Granted: 53,446; Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia:
26,227; Asylum decision: Denied-not in absentia: 110,803; Asylum
decision: Total: 190,476.
Type of asylum case: Total;
Asylum decision: Granted: 28.1; Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia:
13.8; Asylum decision: Denied-not in absentia: 58.2; Asylum decision:
Total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of table]
Grant and Denial Rates by Immigration Court:
Table 9 shows, separately for affirmative and defensive cases,
differences in the percentages of cases granted and denied across the
19 different courts in our analysis. The percentage of affirmative
cases that were granted asylum ranged from 2.4 percent in Atlanta to
47.6 percent in New York. The percentage of defensive cases that were
granted asylum ranged from 6.7 percent in Atlanta to 34.6 percent in
San Francisco. The percentages of cases denied because of the asylum
seeker's being in absentia also varied markedly across the 19 courts,
especially for affirmative cases where the numbers of in absentia cases
were larger. In Los Angeles and Atlanta, 46.3 percent and 61.5 percent
of affirmative asylum cases, respectively, were denied as a result of
the asylum seeker's being in absentia, while the same was true of only
roughly 1 percent of the affirmative cases in Orlando, San Francisco,
and Seattle.
Table 9: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied, by Immigration Court:
Numbers in percents.
Immigration court: Arlington; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative:
Granted (%): 858; (24.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 766;
(21.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%):
1,878; (53.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3,502; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 480; (25.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 122;
(6.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1,249; (67.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1,851; (100).
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 100; (2.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 2,603;
(61.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1,529; (36.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 4,232; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 52; (6.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 39;
(5.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 680;
(88.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 771; (100).
Immigration court: Baltimore; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative:
Granted (%): 1116; (36.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 702;
(23);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%):
1235; (40.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3053; (100.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 388; (30.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 106;
(8.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 791;
(61.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1285; (100).
Immigration court: Bloomington; Decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 157; (26.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 10;
(1.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%):
425; (71.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 592; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 99; (18.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 4;
(0.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 435;
(80.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 538; (100).
Immigration court: Boston;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 551; (26);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 277;
(13.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1288; (60.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2116; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 381; (20.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 57;
(3.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1401; (76.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1839; (100).
Immigration court: Chicago;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 833; (33.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 96;
(3.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1539; (62.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2468; (100.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 521; (26.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 48;
(2.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1415; (71.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1984; (100).
Immigration court: Dallas;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 382; (43.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 25;
(2.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
467; (53.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 874; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 144; (22.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 7;
(1.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 488;
(76.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 639; (100).
Immigration court: Denver;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 385; (32.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 46;
(3.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
761; (63.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1192; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 98; (17.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 6;
(1.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 452;
(81.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 556; (100).
Immigration court: Detroit;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 208; (19.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 72;
(6.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
795; (74);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1075; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 139; (13.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 33;
(3.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 843;
(83.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1015; (100.1).
Immigration court: Houston;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 344; (22.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 98;
(6.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1072; (70.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1514; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 206; (10);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 58;
(2.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1798; (87.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2062; (100).
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 3626; (14.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 11769;
(46.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%):
10029; (39.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 25424; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 743; (16.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 350;
(8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
3297; (75.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 4390; (100).
Immigration court: Miami;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 3976; (18.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 487;
(2.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
16891; (79.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 21354; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 1683; (13.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 186;
(1.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
10612; (85);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 12481; (100).
Immigration court: New York; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative:
Granted (%): 16886; (47.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 4436;
(12.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
14159; (39.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 35481; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8217; (33.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1240;
(5.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
15003; (61.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 24460; (100).
Immigration court: Newark;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 985; (23.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 1078;
(26.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
2051; (49.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 4114; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 509; (23.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 66; (3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1609; (73.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2184; (100).
Immigration court: Orlando;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1123; (42.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 33;
(1.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1500; (56.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2656; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 291; (33);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 11;
(1.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 579;
(65.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 881; (99.9).
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 571; (24.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 225;
(9.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%):
1570; (66.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2366; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 230; (16);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 48;
(3.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1162; (80.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1440; (100).
Immigration court: San Diego; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative:
Granted (%): 310; (15.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 866;
(43);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%):
836; (41.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2012; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 251; (19.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 53;
(4.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 959;
(75.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1263; (100).
Immigration court: San Francisco; Decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 4634; (45.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 147;
(1.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%):
5443; (53.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 10224; (99.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 1540; (34.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 38;
(0.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
2873; (64.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 4451; (100).
Immigration court: Seattle;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 221; (30.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 5;
(0.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
497; (68.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 723; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 208; (14.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 14; (1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1192; (84.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1414; (100).
Immigration court: Total;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741;
(19);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
63965; (51.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486;
(3.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
46838; (71.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100).
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of table]
Grant and Denial Rates by Nationality:
We examined whether the sizable differences in the percentage of cases
granted and denied asylum across immigration courts may be because the
fact that immigration courts differ in the types of cases they handle,
particularly in terms of differences in asylum seekers' nationality.
Table 10 shows the different grant rates for asylum seekers from
different countries, again for affirmative and defensive cases
separately. While the percentage of affirmative cases granted asylum
equaled or exceeded 50 percent for asylum seekers from some countries-
-including Albania, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, and Yugoslavia--it
was lower than 10 percent for asylum seekers from other countries,
including El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. Pronounced
differences in the percentage of cases granted asylum across countries
are evident for defensive cases, as well. Nearly half or more than half
of the asylum seekers in defensive cases from Ethiopia, Iran, and
Somalia were granted asylum, while the same was true of only about 10
percent, or less than 10 percent, of the asylum seekers in defensive
cases from El Salvador, Honduras, and Indonesia. Among affirmative
cases, there are also sizable differences in the percentages denied
because of asylum seekers' being in absentia. For example, fully two-
thirds of such cases from Mexico were denied, but only 2 or 3 percent
of the cases involving Colombians or Haitians were denied with the
claimant in absentia.
Table 10: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied, by Country:
Country: Albania;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 2,134; (53.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 153;
(3.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1,675; (42.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3,962; (100.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 665; (37.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 43;
(2.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1,052; (59.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1,760; (100).
Country: Bangladesh;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 622; (24.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 592;
(23.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1310; (51.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2524; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 188; (27.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 46;
(6.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 455;
(66);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 689; (100).
Country: China;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 14800; (50);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 2398;
(8.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
12384; (41.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 29582; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8240; (33.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 673;
(2.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
15417; (63.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 24330; (100.1).
Country: Colombia;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 2775; (33.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 201;
(2.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
5317; (64.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 8293; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 512; (20.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 55;
(2.2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1935; (77.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2502; (100).
Country: El Salvador;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 369; (3.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 4232;
(44.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
4971; (51.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 9572; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 371; (6.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 343;
(6.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
4705; (86.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 5419; (99.9).
Country: Ethiopia;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1713; (51.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 123;
(3.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1509; (45.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3345; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 652; (51.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 26; (2);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 599;
(46.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1277; (100).
Country: Guatemala;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 826; (5.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 6197;
(41.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
7927; (53);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 14950; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 516; (12.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 262;
(6.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
3220; (80.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 3998; (100).
Country: Haiti;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 2232; (15.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 372;
(2.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
11427; (81.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 14031; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 1254; (12.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 180;
(1.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
8665; (85.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 10099; (100).
Country: Honduras;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 92; (5.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 855;
(47.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
850; (47.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1797; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 181; (9.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 143;
(7.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1513; (82.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1837; (100.1).
Country: India;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 3260; (38.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 710;
(8.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
4438; (52.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 8408; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 668; (22.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 244;
(8.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
2018; (68.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2930; (100).
Country: Indonesia;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1244; (32.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 160;
(4.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
2477; (63.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3881; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 167; (10.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 41;
(2.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1408; (87.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1616; (99.9).
Country: Iran;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 927; (53.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 144;
(8.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
663; (38.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1734; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 343; (48.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 18;
(2.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 345;
(48.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 706; (100).
Country: Mexico;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 184; (2.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 5364;
(67.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
2373; (30);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 7921; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 102; (15.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 33; (5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 522;
(79.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 657; (100).
Country: Nicaragua;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 106; (12);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 230;
(26);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
549; (62);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 885; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 216; (14.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 52;
(3.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1243; (82.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1511; (100).
Country: Nigeria;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 334; (28.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 216;
(18.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
622; (53.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1172; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 236; (25.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 45;
(4.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 646;
(69.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 927; (100.1).
Country: Pakistan;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 757; (29.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 662;
(25.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1139; (44.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2558; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 373; (20.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 196;
(10.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1234; (68.4);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1803; (100).
Country: Peru;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 610; (27.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 235;
(10.7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1356; (61.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2201; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 217; (27.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 15;
(1.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 555;
(70.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 787; (100).
Country: Russia;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1869; (58.6);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 222;
(7);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1100; (34.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3191; (100.1);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 287; (41.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 19;
(2.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 379;
(55.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 685; (100).
Country: Somalia;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1343; (44.9);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 547;
(18.3);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
1100; (36.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2990; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 471; (57);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 11;
(1.3);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 345;
(41.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 827; (100).
Country: Yugoslavia;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1069; (54.1);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 128;
(6.5);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
778; (39.4);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1975; (100);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 521; (45.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 41;
(3.6);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 582;
(50.9);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1144; (100).
Country: Total;
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741;
(19);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%):
63965; (51.2);
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100);
Decision (by type of case)
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486;
(3.8);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%):
46838; (71.5);
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100).
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of table]
Grant and Denial Rates by Claimant Characteristics:
Table 11 presents information, separately for affirmative and defensive
asylum cases, on how grant rates differed across different claimant
characteristics. For example, the percentage of affirmative and
defensive cases that were granted asylum increased over time. The top
panel of table 11 shows the percentages of cases granted and denied in
three different periods. The three periods cover the interval (1) from
the beginning of our data series on October 1, 1994, until March 30,
1997, the day prior to the implementation date for Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; (2) from April 1, 1997,
through September 10, 2001; and (3) from September 11, 2001, through
the final day in our data series on April 30, 2007. The percentage of
affirmative cases that were granted asylum increased from 9.5 percent
in the first period, to 26.8 percent in the second period, to 41.8
percent in the third. The percentage of defensive cases that were
granted asylum increased from 15.3 percent in the first period to 26.0
percent in the second period and 28.6 percent in the third. For
affirmative cases in particular, denials resulting from claimants'
being in absentia decreased considerably over the three periods from
44.0 percent in the first period, to 22.7 percent in the second, and to
4.3 percent in the third. Case outcome also differed as a function of
whether claimants were represented, had dependents, or filed their
claims within 1 year of entering the country. For affirmative cases,
(1) 36.8 percent of claimants who were represented were granted asylum,
compared to 4.0 percent who were not represented; (2) 40.2 percent of
the claimants with dependents were granted asylum, compared with 28.4
percent of the claimants without dependents; and (3) 36.5 percent of
claimants who applied for asylum within 1 year of entering the country
were granted asylum, compared to 18.4 percent who applied more than 1
year later.[Footnote 70] We found roughly similar, though somewhat less
pronounced differences, for claimants in defensive cases. For defensive
cases, we also considered whether there were differences between those
who had and had not been detained, but as the bottom panel of table 13
shows, those differences were very small (24.1 percent versus 25.4
percent).
Table 11: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum
Cases Granted and Denied, by Various Claimant Characteristics:
Claimant characteristic: 10/1/94 - 3/30/97; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 2,087; (9.5);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 9,712;
(44);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 10,268;
(46.5);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 22,067; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 2,521; (15.3);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1,305;
(7.9);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 12,635;
(76.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 16,461; (100).
Claimant characteristic: 4/1/97 - 9/10/01; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 13991; (26.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 11875;
(22.7);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 26402;
(50.5);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 52268; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 3784; (26);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 553; (3.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 10211;
(70.2);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 14548; (100).
Claimant characteristic: 9/11/01 - 4/30/07; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 21188; (41.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 2154;
(4.3);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 27295;
(53.9);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 50637; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 9875; (28.6);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 628; (1.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 23992;
(69.6);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 34495; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Period total; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741;
(19);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965;
(51.2);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486;
(3.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838;
(71.5);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Representation; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 36198; (36.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 5994;
(6.1);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 56115;
(57.1);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 98307; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 15855; (25.9);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2049;
(3.4);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 43196;
(70.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 61100; (100).
Claimant characteristic: No representation; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 1068; (4);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 17747;
(66.6);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 7850;
(29.4);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 26665; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 325; (7.4);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 437; (9.9);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 3642;
(32.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 4404; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Representation total; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741;
(19);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965;
(51.2);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486;
(3.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838;
(71.5);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Dependents; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 6086; (40.2);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 996;
(6.6);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 8065;
(53.2);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 15147; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 987; (36);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 57; (2.1);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 1700;
(62);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2744; (100.1).
Claimant characteristic: No dependents; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 31180; (28.4);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 22745;
(20.7);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 55900;
(50.9);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 109825; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 15193; (24.2);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2429;
(3.9);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 45138;
(71.9);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 62760; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Dependents total; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741;
(19);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965;
(51.2);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486;
(3.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838;
(71.5);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100).
Claimant characteristic: App not filed in 1 year; Group (by type of
case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 9132; (18.4);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 14105;
(28.5);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 26284;
(53.1);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 49521; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 4124; (21.1);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 666; (3.4);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 14734;
(75.5);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 19524; (100).
Claimant characteristic: App filed w/in 1 year; Group (by type of
case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 24215; (36.5);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 8589;
(12.9);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 33596;
(50.6);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 66400; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8551; (28.4);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 873; (2.9);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied- not absentia (%): 20671;
(68.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 30095; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Missing; Group (by type of case): Affirmative:
Granted (%): 3919; (43.3);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 1047;
(11.6);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 4085;
(45.1);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 9051; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 3505; (22.1);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 947; (6);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 11433;
(72);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 15885; (100.1).
Claimant characteristic: App filed 1 year total; Group (by type of
case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741;
(19);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965;
(51.2);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486;
(3.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied- not absentia (%): 46838;
(71.5);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Ever detained; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 103; (8.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 122;
(10.4);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 952;
(80.9);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1177; (100.1);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8329; (24.1);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1061;
(3.1);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 25152;
(72.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 34542; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Never detained; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37163; (30);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23619;
(19.1);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63013;
(50.9);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 123795; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 7851; (25.4);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1425;
(4.6);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 21686;
(70);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 30962; (100).
Claimant characteristic: Detained total; Group (by type of case):
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741;
(19);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965;
(51.2);
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486;
(3.8);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838;
(71.5);
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100).
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of table]
Grant and Denial Rates by Country and Immigration Court:
To get a general sense of whether the seemingly large disparities in
asylum outcomes across immigration courts were associated with the fact
that different immigration courts handled different numbers of cases
from the 20 countries we considered, we first looked at how, for
claimants from the same country, decisions differed depending on which
immigration court handled their case. In doing so, we restricted our
analysis to immigration courts that handled 50 or more affirmative
cases and 50 or more defensive cases from a given country, both to
simplify our results and to avoid giving too much weight to differences
in percentages that were based on very small numbers of cases. Table 12
shows the percentages granted and denied when the cases denied in
absentia are excluded. When looking at differences in grant rates for
the same country across immigration courts, we excluded cases denied in
absentia because the denial of in absentia cases involves no judicial
discretion.
Table 12 shows the percentages granted and denied across immigration
courts, for both affirmative and defensive cases, for cases from the 20
countries. While grant rates for affirmative cases were similar for a
few countries, such as Bangladesh and Iran, there were large
differences in grant rates across immigration courts for most
countries. For example, 12 percent of Chinese asylum seekers in
affirmative cases were granted asylum in Atlanta, while 75 percent were
granted asylum in Orlando. Similarly, less than 1 percent of
Guatemalans in affirmative cases were granted asylum in Atlanta, while
slightly more than 30 percent were granted asylum in San Francisco.
Claimants in affirmative cases from many other countries show markedly
different percentages granted across the various immigration courts
they came into. The percentages granted in such cases range from 21
percent to 68 percent for Albanians, from 14 percent to 69 percent for
Colombians, and from 14 percent to 77 percent for Ethiopians. For many
countries, the percentage of defensive cases that were granted asylum
varied similarly depending upon the immigration court they came into.
Table 12: Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Cases Granted and
Denied, by Country and Immigration Court, for Immigration Courts
Deciding 50 or More Cases from the Different Countries:
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 48.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 51.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 162; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 128.
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 46.4; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 53.6; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 211; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 31.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 68.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 135.
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Detroit;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 21.4; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 78.6; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 495; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 297.
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 50.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 49.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 81; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 25.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 74.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 178.
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 68.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 31.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 2,330; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 58.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
41.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 656.
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 192; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 30.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 69.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 122.
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Orlando;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 39.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 60.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 88; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 41.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 58.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 119; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Albania;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 56.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 43.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 3,678; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 38.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 61.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 1,516.
Country: Bangladesh;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 30.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 69.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 339; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 23.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
76.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 68.
Country: Bangladesh;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 33.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 66.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 1,256; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 34; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
66; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 415.
Country: Bangladesh;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 26.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 73.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 69; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Bangladesh;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 32.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 67.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,664; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 32.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 67.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 483.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 150; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 29.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
70.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 208.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 88; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 92; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 3.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 96.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 286.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 185; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
66.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 210.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 28.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 71.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 57.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 53.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 46.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 243; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 40.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 59.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 247.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 49.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 50.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 325; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 32; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 68; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 410.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Dallas;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 39.5; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 60.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 76.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Denver;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 65; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 35; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: China;
Immigration court: Detroit;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 35.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 64.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 56; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 12.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 87.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 234.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 56.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 43.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 125; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: China;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 43.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 56.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 3,505; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 41; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
59; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 495.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 47.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 52.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 74; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 25.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 74.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 316.
Country: China;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 56.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 43.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 19,993; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 35.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 64.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 18,424.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 57.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 42.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 783; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 35.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 64.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 825.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Orlando;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 75; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 25; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 76; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 60; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 40; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 130.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 461; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 25.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
74.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 543.
Country: China;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 66.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 32.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
67.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 217.
Country: China;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 58.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 41.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 914; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 48.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
51.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 645.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 22; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Denied: 78; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 254.
Country: China;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 54.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 45.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 27,096; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 34.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 65.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 23,577.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 50.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 49.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 55; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 13.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 86.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 137; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 111; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 16.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 83.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 203.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 47.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 52.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 84; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 29.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 70.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 92; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 88.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 67.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 36.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 63.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 152; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 22.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
77.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 72.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 27.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 72.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 5,539; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 16.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 83.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 1,318.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 69.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 30.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 291; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 41.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
58.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 212.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 25.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 74.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 198; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 18.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 81.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 166.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Orlando;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 55.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 44.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,185; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 44.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 55.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 101.
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 64; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Colombia;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 34.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 65.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 7,908; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 79.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 2,139.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 2.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 97.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 333; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 92;
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 338.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 2.4; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 97.6; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 248; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 7.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 92.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 177; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 7.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
92.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 180.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 93; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 71; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 1.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
98.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 72.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 8.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 91.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 245; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 6.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 93.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 192.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 14.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 85.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 158; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 12.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 87.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 132.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Dallas;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 87.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 81; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 3.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 96.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 103.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Denver;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 1.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 98.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 118; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 1.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 98.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 132.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 4.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 95.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 440; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 2.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 97.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 793.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 96; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 1,403; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 4.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
95.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 1,014.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 416; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 6.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 93.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 225.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 8.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 91.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 681; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 16; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 84;
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 374.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 93; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 201; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 3.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 96.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 122.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 4.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Denied: 95.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
147.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 15.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 84.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 577; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 14.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
85.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 897.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 2.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 97.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 94; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 2.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 97.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 256.
Country: El Salvador;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 93; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 5,243; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 7.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 92.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 4,977.
Country: Ethiopia;
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 39; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 61; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 843; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 49.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
50.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 373.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 14.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 85.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 56; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 57.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 42.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 1,133; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 59.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
40.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 273.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 109; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 30.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
69.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 52.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 66.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 33.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 98; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 47.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 52.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 69.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Dallas;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 45; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 131; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 38.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 61.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 55.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Denver;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 77.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 22.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 79; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 65.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 34.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 225; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 69; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 31;
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 71.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 73.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 26.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 46.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 53.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 77; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 74.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 25.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 225; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 77.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
22.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 81.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 43.1; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 56.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 51.
Country: Ethiopia;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 53.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 46.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 3,036; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 53.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 46.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 1,025.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 6.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 93.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 228; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 9.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
90.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 123.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 0.4; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 99.6; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 490; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 8.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 91.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 99; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 17.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
82.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 68.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 3.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 96.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 97; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 12.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
87.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 57.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 92; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 375; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 89; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 236.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 10.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 89.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 673; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 88.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 334.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Dallas;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 22; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 78; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 50; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Denver;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 95; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 240; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 5.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 94.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 96.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Detroit;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 1.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 98.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 93; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 11.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 88.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 293; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 8.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 91.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 306.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 5.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 94.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 2,871; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 8.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
91.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 789.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 87.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,180; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 88.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 297.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 12.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 87.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 331; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 22.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
77.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 120.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 92.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 279; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 10.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 89.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 74.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Orlando;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 5.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 94.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 2.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 97.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 319; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 10; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 90; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 250; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 10.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
89.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 301.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 30.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 69.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 734; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 33.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
66.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 563.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 8.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 91.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 97; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 95.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 209.
Country: Guatemala;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.4; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.6; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 8,753; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 13.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 86.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 3,573.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.5; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 95.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 66.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 24.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 75.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 11.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
88.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 63.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 25.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 74.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 237; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: Country: 13.8; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Denied: Country: 86.2; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: Total: Country: 362.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Country: Miami; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 14.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 85.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 11,678; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 11.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 88.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 8,210.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 32.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 67.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 332 Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 23.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
76.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 299.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 88; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 200; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 88.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 213.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Orlando;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 25.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 74.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,008; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 21.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 78.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 499.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 34.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 65.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 58; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 21.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
78.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 55.
Country: Haiti;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 16.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 83.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 13,567; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 12.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 87.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 9,767.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 11; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Denied: 89; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 109.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.3; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 95.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 328.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 6.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 93.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 329; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 9.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
90.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 224.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 13.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 86.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 180; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 90.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 319.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 14.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 85.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 84; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 28.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
71.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 87.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 6.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Denied: 93.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 79.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 12.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 87.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 62; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 21.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
78.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 152.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.4; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 90.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 85.
Country: Honduras;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 655; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 10.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 89.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 1,383.
Country: India;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 16.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 83.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 91; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 95.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 115.
Country: India;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.9; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 79.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 67.
Country: India;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 36.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 63.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 576; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 34.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
65.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 104.
Country: India;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 32.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 67.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 1,049; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 18.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
81.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 803.
Country: India;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 20.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 79.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 278; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 6.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 93.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 118.
Country: India;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 15; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 85; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: India;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 48.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 51.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 5,143; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 36.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
63.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 1,133.
Country: India;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 44.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 185; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 26.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 73.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 92.
Country: India;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 43.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 56.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 7,382; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 26.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 73.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 2,432.
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 18.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 81.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 164; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 63; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 46.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 53.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 77; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 19.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 80.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 177; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 132.
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Denver;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 17.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 82.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 203; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 31.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 68.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 737; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 11.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
88.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 401.
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 61; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 39; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 733; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 28; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 72;
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 214.
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 18.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 81.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 145; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 7.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 92.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 84.
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 14.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 85.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 765; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 1.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
98.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: Total: 403.
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 52.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 47.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 442; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 1.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 98.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 64; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 1.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 98.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 116.
Country: Indonesia;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 33.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 66.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 3,624; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 90.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 1,350.
Country: Iran;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 70.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 29.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 61; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Iran;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 67.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 32.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 55; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Iran;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 73.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 26.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 57; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Iran;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 52.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 47.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 970; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 43.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
56.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 218.
Country: Iran;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 42.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 57.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 57.
Country: Iran;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 72.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 27.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 187; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 65.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
34.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 89.
Country: Iran;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 57.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 42.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,330; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 48.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 51.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 364.
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 2.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 97.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 106; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 3.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 96.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 96; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 1,124; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 21.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
78.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 115.
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 5.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 94.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 113; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 8.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 91.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 206; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 10.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
89.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 119.
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 12.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 87.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 764; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 23.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
76.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 161.
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 5.2; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 94.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 58.
Country: Mexico;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 92.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 2,373; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 17.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 82.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 453.
Country: Nicaragua;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 19.1; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 80.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 89.
Country: Nicaragua;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 10.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 89.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 136; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 10.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
89.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 164.
Country: Nicaragua;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 15.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 84.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 396; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 14; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 86; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 842.
Country: Nicaragua;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 18.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 81.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 148.
Country: Nicaragua;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 14.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 85.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 532; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 14.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 85.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 1,243.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 23.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 76.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 69.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.1; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 55.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 37.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 62.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 110; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 19; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 81;
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 84.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Boston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 45.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 54.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 51; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 33.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 66.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 56.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 32.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 67.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 59; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 32.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 67.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 83.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Dallas;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 14; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Denied: 86; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 50.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 28.8; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 71.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 59.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 35.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 64.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 315; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 38.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
61.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 119.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 39.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 60.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 79; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 66.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 51.
Country: Nigeria;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 36.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 63.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 614; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 27.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 72.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 626.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 46.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 53.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 116; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 33.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
66.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 74.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 60; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 40; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 65; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
66.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 57.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 35.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 64.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 114; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 21.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 78.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 136.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Dallas;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 37.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 62.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 58; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 14.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 85.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 63.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 37.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 62.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 64; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 16.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 83.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 122.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 32.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 67.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 246; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 24.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
75.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 74.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 38.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 61.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 716; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 24.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
75.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 635.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 30.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 69.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 107; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 90.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 98.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 63.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 36.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 80; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 9.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
90.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 82.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 45.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 54.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 200; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 41.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
58.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 120.
Country: Pakistan;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,766; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 23.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 76.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 1,461.
Country: Peru;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Granted: 20.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 79.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 64.
Country: Peru;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 20.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 79.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 350; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 16.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
83.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 93.
Country: Peru;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 23.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 76.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 871; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 79.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 246.
Country: Peru;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 53.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 46.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 95; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Peru;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 17.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 82.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 99; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Peru;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 61.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 38.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 304; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 56.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
43.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 141.
Country: Peru;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 30.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 69.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,719; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 29.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 70.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 544.
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 62.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 37.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 51; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 67.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 32.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 56; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 44.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 112; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 47; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 53; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 66.
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Denver;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 64.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 35.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 124; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 54.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 45.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 384; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 51.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
48.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 60.
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 61.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 38.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 124; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 69.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 30.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 1,388; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 55.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
44.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 134.
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 57.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 42.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 144; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Orlando;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 61.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 38.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 81; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 52.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 47.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 86; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 75.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 24.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 157; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 44.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
55.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 67.
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 44.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 87; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 18.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 81.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 74.
Country: Russia;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 64; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 36; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 2,794; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 44.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 55.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 401.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 39.6; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 60.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 419; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 53.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
46.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 105.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Atlanta;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12.1; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 87.9; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 174; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.4; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 79.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 54.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 55.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 44.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 194; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 68; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 32;
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 50.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 40.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 59.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 137; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 31.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
68.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 114.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 80.7; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 19.3; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 145; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 78.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 21.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 73.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Dallas;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 76.5; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 23.5; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 217; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Denver;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 72; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 28; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 132; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Houston;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 82.4; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 17.6; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 51; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: [Empty];
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 60.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 39.3; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 219; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Miami;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty];
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 64.2; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 35.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: Total: 95.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 39.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 60.8; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 365; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: 55.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
44.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 76.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 83; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 17; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 206; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: %
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total:
[Empty];
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Seattle;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 63; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 37; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 73; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 58.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 41.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 53.
Country: Somalia;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 54.2; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 45.8; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 2,332; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 52.9; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 47.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 620.
Country: Yugoslavia;
Immigration court: Chicago;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 48.9; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 51.1; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 133; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 33.1; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 66.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 163.
Country: Yugoslavia;
Immigration court: Detroit;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 19.6; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 80.4; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 112; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 88.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 131.
Country: Yugoslavia;
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Granted: 64.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: % Denied: 35.5; Group decision (by type of case):
Affirmative: Total: 1,297; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
% Granted: 60.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied:
39.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 613.
Country: Yugoslavia;
Immigration court: Newark;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 39.8; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 60.2; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 128; Group decision (by type of
case): Defensive: % Granted: 43.7; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 56.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 71.
Country: Yugoslavia;
Immigration court: Total;
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 58.3; Group
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 41.7; Group decision
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,670; Group decision (by type
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 48.2; Group decision (by type of case):
Defensive: % Denied: 51.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive:
Total: 978.
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
Note: The empty cells in the above tables reflect immigration courts
that heard fewer than 50 affirmative cases or 50 defensive cases
involving claimants from a specific country.
[End of table]
Logistic Regression Results: Odds of Being Granted Asylum:
One of the difficulties with interpreting the results shown in Table
12, above, is that there are so many comparisons that can be made and
that these three-way cross-classifications (e.g., immigration court by
asylum decision by country) do not take into account the other
characteristics of the claimants that, as we showed in Table 11, can
affect asylum decisions; namely, the period in which the cases were
heard, whether the asylum seekers were represented, whether they had
dependents, whether they applied for asylum within a year of entering
the country, and whether, among those whose cases were defensive, they
had ever been detained. An alternative approach to assessing the
variability in granting asylum across immigration courts is to use
logistic regression models, which allow us to estimate the differences
across immigration courts in a multivariate context, or while
controlling statistically (and simultaneously) for the effects of these
other factors. In tables 13 and 14, we show the results of fitting
logistic regression models to the data for affirmative and defensive
cases respectively, in both cases after excluding those cases that were
in absentia.
Before describing the results of the multivariate regression models, we
first note one fundamental difference between them and our foregoing
results, which is that in logistic regression models we use odds and
odds ratios, rather than percentages and percentage differences, to
compare countries (or differences by period, between cases represented,
and so on). The odds themselves are fairly straightforward and can,
when we are looking at the effect of one factor at a time on the
likelihood of cases being granted asylum, be calculated directly from
the percentages granted. To estimate the differences across immigration
courts, for example, we can calculate the odds on cases' being granted
in each immigration court, which is simply the percentage granted
divided by the percentage not granted. In the case of the Atlanta
immigration court, the odds on being granted would be 6.1/93.9 = 0.07
(see table 13). This odds has a straightforward interpretation, and
indicates that 0.07 cases were granted for every 1 case that was not,
or that 7 cases were granted for every 100 that were not. The odds on
being granted can be similarly calculated and interpreted for the other
immigration courts, and at the bottom of Tables 13 and 14, we also show
the odds on cases' being granted across categories of the other factors
as well (i.e., period, representation, etc.)
To compare immigration courts or different categories of the other
variables, we choose one immigration court or one category of the other
variables as a referent category, and calculate odds ratios that
indicate how different the odds are for other immigration courts or
other categories versus that one. In assessing immigration courts, we
arbitrarily chose Denver as the referent category. As shown in columns
4 and 5 in table 13, by dividing, for example, the odds on being
granted asylum in Atlanta (0.07) and the same odds in Baltimore (0.90)
by the odds in Denver (0.51), we find that the odds on granting asylum
(in affirmative cases) are lower in Atlanta than in Denver, by a factor
of 0.13, but higher in Baltimore than in Denver, by a factor of 1.79.
Without adjusting for the effects of immigration court, nationality,
time period, representation, dependents, timeliness of application, and
detention status, this means that for affirmative cases, the odds on
asylum being granted in Baltimore were about 14 times greater than in
Atlanta (1.79 unadjusted odds ratio in Baltimore divided by .13
unadjusted odds ratio in Atlanta, which are shown in column 5 in table
13).
The full set of "unadjusted" odds ratios comparing all immigration
courts with Denver are given in column 5 of table 13 for affirmative
cases, and column 5 of table 13 for defensive cases. These unadjusted
odds ratios indicate the differences in the odds on being granted
asylum across the various categories of the different factors, when
factors are considered one at a time. Tables 13 and 14 also show
unadjusted odds ratios comparing differences across countries, periods,
representation categories, dependents categories, entry-to-application
categories and, in table 16, categories that indicate whether the
applicants for asylum in defensive cases had ever been detained.
When considering one factor at a time, these unadjusted odds ratios can
be directly calculated from the percentages granted and denied across
the categories of each factor. However, when we want to consider the
effects of the different factors simultaneously--that is, to estimate
differences across immigration courts after taking account of which
countries the asylum seekers came from, when their case was heard,
whether they were represented, etc., we use multivariate logistic
regression models which involve an iterative statistical estimation
procedure to obtain a net effect estimate for each factor. These are
referred to as "adjusted odds ratios," shown in column 6 of tables 13
and 14.
Table 13: Results of Modeling Affirmative Cases with Absentia Excluded:
Factor (1): Arlington;
Percent granted (2): 31.4;
Percent denied (3): 68.6;
Odds on granted (4): 0.46;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.9; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69.
Factor (1): Atlanta;
Percent granted (2): 6.1;
Percent denied (3): 93.9;
Odds on granted (4): 0.07;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.13[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A].
Factor (1): Baltimore;
Percent granted (2): 47.5;
Percent denied (3): 52.5;
Odds on granted (4): 0.9;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.79[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.08.
Factor (1): Bloomington;
Percent granted (2): 27;
Percent denied (3): 73;
Odds on granted (4): 0.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.73; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.5[A].
Factor (1): Boston;
Percent granted (2): 30;
Percent denied (3): 70;
Odds on granted (4): 0.43;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.85; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.14.
Factor (1): Chicago;
Percent granted (2): 35.1;
Percent denied (3): 64.9;
Odds on granted (4): 0.54;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.07; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.1.
Factor (1): Dallas;
Percent granted (2): 45;
Percent denied (3): 55;
Odds on granted (4): 0.82;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.62; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.19.
Factor (1): Denver;
Percent granted (2): 33.6;
Percent denied (3): 66.4;
Odds on granted (4): 0.51;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Ref; Adjusted odds ratios (6): Ref.
Factor (1): Detroit;
Percent granted (2): 20.7;
Percent denied (3): 79.3;
Odds on granted (4): 0.26;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.52[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A].
Factor (1): Houston;
Percent granted (2): 24.3;
Percent denied (3): 75.7;
Odds on granted (4): 0.32;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.63[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.19.
Factor (1): Los Angeles;
Percent granted (2): 26.6;
Percent denied (3): 73.4;
Odds on granted (4): 0.36;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.71; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.87.
Factor (1): Miami;
Percent granted (2): 19.1;
Percent denied (3): 80.9;
Odds on granted (4): 0.24;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.47[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.7.
Factor (1): New York;
Percent granted (2): 54.4;
Percent denied (3): 45.6;
Odds on granted (4): 1.19;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 2.36[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.74[A].
Factor (1): Newark;
Percent granted (2): 32.4;
Percent denied (3): 67.6;
Odds on granted (4): 0.48;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.95; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.97.
Factor (1): Orlando;
Percent granted (2): 42.8;
Percent denied (3): 57.2;
Odds on granted (4): 0.75;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.48; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.6[A].
Factor (1): Philadelphia;
Percent granted (2): 26.7;
Percent denied (3): 73.3;
Odds on granted (4): 0.36;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.72; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69.
Factor (1): San Diego;
Percent granted (2): 27.1;
Percent denied (3): 72.9;
Odds on granted (4): 0.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.73; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.64[A].
Factor (1): San Francisco;
Percent granted (2): 46;
Percent denied (3): 54;
Odds on granted (4): 0.85;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.68[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 2.15[A].
Factor (1): Seattle;
Percent granted (2): 30.8;
Percent denied (3): 69.2;
Odds on granted (4): 0.44;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.88; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.87.
Factor (1): Albania;
Percent granted (2): 56;
Percent denied (3): 44;
Odds on granted (4): 1.27;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6):
Referent.
Factor (1): Bangladesh;
Percent granted (2): 32.2;
Percent denied (3): 67.8;
Odds on granted (4): 0.47;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.37[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.42[A].
Factor (1): China;
Percent granted (2): 54.4;
Percent denied (3): 45.6;
Odds on granted (4): 1.2;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.94; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.91.
Factor (1): Colombia;
Percent granted (2): 34.3;
Percent denied (3): 65.7;
Odds on granted (4): 0.52;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.41[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.52[A].
Factor (1): El Salvador;
Percent granted (2): 6.9;
Percent denied (3): 93.1;
Odds on granted (4): 0.07;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.06[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.11[A].
Factor (1): Ethiopia;
Percent granted (2): 53.2;
Percent denied (3): 46.8;
Odds on granted (4): 1.14;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.89; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.45[A].
Factor (1): Guatemala;
Percent granted (2): 9.4;
Percent denied (3): 90.6;
Odds on granted (4): 0.1;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.08[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A].
Factor (1): Haiti;
Percent granted (2): 16.3;
Percent denied (3): 83.7;
Odds on granted (4): 0.2;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.15[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.27[A].
Factor (1): Honduras;
Percent granted (2): 9.8;
Percent denied (3): 90.2;
Odds on granted (4): 0.11;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.08[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A].
Factor (1): India;
Percent granted (2): 42.3;
Percent denied (3): 57.7;
Odds on granted (4): 0.73;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.58[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.45[A].
Factor (1): Indonesia;
Percent granted (2): 33.4;
Percent denied (3): 66.6;
Odds on granted (4): 0.5;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.39[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.44[A].
Factor (1): Iran;
Percent granted (2): 58.3;
Percent denied (3): 41.7;
Odds on granted (4): 1.4;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.1; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.62[A].
Factor (1): Mexico;
Percent granted (2): 7.2;
Percent denied (3): 92.8;
Odds on granted (4): 0.08;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.06[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.09[A].
Factor (1): Nicaragua;
Percent granted (2): 16.2;
Percent denied (3): 83.8;
Odds on granted (4): 0.19;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.15[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.46[A].
Factor (1): Nigeria;
Percent granted (2): 34.9;
Percent denied (3): 65.1;
Odds on granted (4): 0.54;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.42[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.68[A].
Factor (1): Pakistan;
Percent granted (2): 39.9;
Percent denied (3): 60.1;
Odds on granted (4): 0.66;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.52[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.68[A].
Factor (1): Peru;
Percent granted (2): 31;
Percent denied (3): 69;
Odds on granted (4): 0.45;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.35[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.57[A].
Factor (1): Russia;
Percent granted (2): 63;
Percent denied (3): 37;
Odds on granted (4): 1.7;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.33[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.51[A].
Factor (1): Somalia;
Percent granted (2): 55;
Percent denied (3): 45;
Odds on granted (4): 1.22;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.96; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.78[A].
Factor (1): Yugoslavia;
Percent granted (2): 57.9;
Percent denied (3): 42.1;
Odds on granted (4): 1.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.08; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.15[A].
Factor (1): Period 1;
Percent granted (2): 16.9;
Percent denied (3): 83.1;
Odds on granted (4): 0.2;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6):
Referent.
Factor (1): Period 2;
Percent granted (2): 34.6;
Percent denied (3): 65.4;
Odds on granted (4): 0.53;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 2.61[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.96[A].
Factor (1): Period 3;
Percent granted (2): 43.7;
Percent denied (3): 56.3;
Odds on granted (4): 0.78;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 3.82[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 2.65[A].
Factor (1): Not represented; Percent granted (2): 12;
Percent denied (3): 88;
Odds on granted (4): 0.14;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6):
Referent.
Factor (1): Represented;
Percent granted (2): 39.2;
Percent denied (3): 60.8;
Odds on granted (4): 0.65;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 4.74[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.73a.
Factor (1): Dependents-No;
Percent granted (2): 35.8;
Percent denied (3): 64.2;
Odds on granted (4): 0.56;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6):
Referent.
Factor (1): Dependents-Yes;
Percent granted (2): 43;
Percent denied (3): 57;
Odds on granted (4): 0.75;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.35[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.52[A].
Factor (1): Application not filed within 1 year of entry; Percent
granted (2): 25.8;
Percent denied (3): 74.2;
Odds on granted (4): 0.35;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6):
Referent.
Factor (1): Application filed within 1 year of entry; Percent granted
(2): 41.9;
Percent denied (3): 58.1;
Odds on granted (4): 0.72;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 2.07[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.44[A].
Factor (1): Information on whether application filed within 1 year of
entry is missing; Percent granted (2): 49;
Percent denied (3): 51;
Odds on granted (4): 0.96;
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): [Empty]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[A] Statistically significant difference from referent.
[End of table]
Table 14: Results of Modeling Defensive Cases with Absentia Excluded:
Factor: Arlington;
Percent granted: 27.8;
Percent denied: 72.2;
Odds on granted: 0.38;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.77[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.21.
Factor: Atlanta;
Percent granted: 7.1;
Percent denied: 92.9;
Odds on granted: 0.08;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.35[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.2[A].
Factor: Baltimore;
Percent granted: 32.9;
Percent denied: 67.1;
Odds on granted: 0.49;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.26[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.33.
Factor: Bloomington;
Percent granted: 18.5;
Percent denied: 81.5;
Odds on granted: 0.23;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.05; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.48[A].
Factor: Boston;
Percent granted: 21.4;
Percent denied: 78.6;
Odds on granted: 0.27;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.25; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.14.
Factor: Chicago;
Percent granted: 26.9;
Percent denied: 73.1;
Odds on granted: 0.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.7[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.1.
Factor: Dallas;
Percent granted: 22.8;
Percent denied: 77.2;
Odds on granted: 0.3;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.36; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.9.
Factor: Denver;
Percent granted: 17.8;
Percent denied: 82.2;
Odds on granted: 0.22;
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref.
Factor: Detroit;
Percent granted: 14.2;
Percent denied: 85.8;
Odds on granted: 0.16;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.76; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.3[A].
Factor: Houston;
Percent granted: 10.3;
Percent denied: 89.7;
Odds on granted: 0.11;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.53[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.72.
Factor: Los Angeles;
Percent granted: 18.4;
Percent denied: 81.6;
Odds on granted: 0.23;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.04; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.12.
Factor: Miami;
Percent granted: 13.7;
Percent denied: 86.3;
Odds on granted: 0.16;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.73; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.84.
Factor: New York;
Percent granted: 35.4;
Percent denied: 64.6;
Odds on granted: 0.55;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.53[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.57[A].
Factor: Newark;
Percent granted: 24;
Percent denied: 76;
Odds on granted: 0.32;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.46; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.02.
Factor: Orlando;
Percent granted: 33.4;
Percent denied: 66.6;
Odds on granted: 0.5;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.32[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.14[A].
Factor: Philadelphia;
Percent granted: 16.5;
Percent denied: 83.5;
Odds on granted: 0.2;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.91; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.7.
Factor: San Diego;
Percent granted: 20.7;
Percent denied: 79.3;
Odds on granted: 0.26;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.21; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.95.
Factor: San Francisco;
Percent granted: 34.9;
Percent denied: 65.1;
Odds on granted: 0.54;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.47[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.94[A].
Factor: Seattle;
Percent granted: 14.9;
Percent denied: 85.1;
Odds on granted: 0.17;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.8; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.72.
Factor: Albania;
Percent granted: 38.7;
Percent denied: 61.3;
Odds on granted: 0.63;
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref.
Factor: Bangladesh;
Percent granted: 29.2;
Percent denied: 70.8;
Odds on granted: 0.41;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.65[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.66[A].
Factor: China;
Percent granted: 34.8;
Percent denied: 65.2;
Odds on granted: 0.53;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.85; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.74[A].
Factor: Colombia;
Percent granted: 20.9;
Percent denied: 79.1;
Odds on granted: 0.26;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.42[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.43[A].
Factor: El Salvador;
Percent granted: 7.3;
Percent denied: 92.7;
Odds on granted: 0.08;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.12[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.13[A].
Factor: Ethiopia;
Percent granted: 52.1;
Percent denied: 47.9;
Odds on granted: 1.09;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.72[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.26[A].
Factor: Guatemala;
Percent granted: 13.8;
Percent denied: 86.2;
Odds on granted: 0.16;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.25[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.31[A].
Factor: Haiti;
Percent granted: 12.6;
Percent denied: 87.4;
Odds on granted: 0.14;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.23[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.33[A].
Factor: Honduras;
Percent granted: 10.7;
Percent denied: 89.3;
Odds on granted: 0.12;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.19[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.22[A].
Factor: India;
Percent granted: 24.9;
Percent denied: 75.1;
Odds on granted: 0.33;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.52[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.45[A].
Factor: Indonesia;
Percent granted: 10.6;
Percent denied: 89.4;
Odds on granted: 0.12;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.19[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.18[A].
Factor: Iran;
Percent granted: 49.9;
Percent denied: 50.1;
Odds on granted: 0.99;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.57[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.02[A].
Factor: Mexico;
Percent granted: 16.3;
Percent denied: 83.7;
Odds on granted: 0.2;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.31[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.32[A].
Factor: Nicaragua;
Percent granted: 14.8;
Percent denied: 85.2;
Odds on granted: 0.17;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.27[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.45[A].
Factor: Nigeria;
Percent granted: 26.8;
Percent denied: 73.2;
Odds on granted: 0.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.58[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.89.
Factor: Pakistan;
Percent granted: 23.2;
Percent denied: 76.8;
Odds on granted: 0.3;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.48[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.51[A].
Factor: Peru;
Percent granted: 28.1;
Percent denied: 71.9;
Odds on granted: 0.39;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.62[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.78.
Factor: Russia;
Percent granted: 43.1;
Percent denied: 56.9;
Odds on granted: 0.76;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.2; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.65[A].
Factor: Somalia;
Percent granted: 57.7;
Percent denied: 42.3;
Odds on granted: 1.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.16[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 3.89[A].
Factor: Yugoslavia;
Percent granted: 47.2;
Percent denied: 52.8;
Odds on granted: 0.9;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.42[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.68[A].
Factor: Period 1;
Percent granted: 16.6;
Percent denied: 83.4;
Odds on granted: 0.2;
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref.
Factor: Period 2;
Percent granted: 27;
Percent denied: 73;
Odds on granted: 0.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.86[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.05[A].
Factor: Period 3;
Percent granted: 29.2;
Percent denied: 70.8;
Odds on granted: 0.41;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.06[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.31[A].
Factor: Not represented;
Percent granted: 8.2;
Percent denied: 91.8;
Odds on granted: 0.09;
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref.
Factor: Represented;
Percent granted: 26.8;
Percent denied: 73.2;
Odds on granted: 0.37;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 4.11[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.31[A].
Factor: Dependents-No;
Percent granted: 25.2;
Percent denied: 74.8;
Odds on granted: 0.34;
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref.
Factor: Dependents-Yes;
Percent granted: 36.7;
Percent denied: 63.3;
Odds on granted: 0.58;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.72[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.81[A].
Factor: Application not filed within 1 year of entry; Percent granted:
21.9;
Percent denied: 78.1;
Odds on granted: 0.28;
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref.
Factor: Application filed within 1 year of entry; Percent granted:
29.3;
Percent denied: 70.7;
Odds on granted: 0.41;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.48[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.28[A].
Factor: Information on whether application filed within 1 year of entry
is missing; Percent granted: 23.5;
Percent denied: 76.5;
Odds on granted: 0.31;
Unadjusted odds ratios: ;
Adjusted odds ratios: .
Factor: Never detained;
Percent granted: 26.6;
Percent denied: 73.4;
Odds on granted: 0.36;
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref.
Factor: Currently detained or released; Percent granted: 24.9;
Percent denied: 75.1;
Odds on granted: 0.33;
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.91[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.69[A].
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[A] Statistically significant difference from referent.
[End of table]
The adjusted odds ratios tell us that even after adjusting for the
sizable differences in the odds on asylum's being granted across
countries, across the different periods, and across categories of
representation, dependents, entry-to-application time, and whether ever
detained (for defensive cases only), there remain sizable differences
across immigration courts. That is, even after we take account of the
effects of all these other factors and how, for example, immigration
courts differ in terms of the asylum seekers' nationalities and when
asylum seekers' cases were heard, we find sizable differences across
immigration courts in the odds on granting asylum. After controlling
for all of these factors, the net effect was that in comparison with
Denver, the likelihood of affirmative cases' being granted asylum was
2.15 times greater in San Francisco, half as likely in Bloomington, and
less than one-fifth as likely in Atlanta. This implies that, for
affirmative cases, the odds on asylum's being granted were about 4
times greater in San Francisco than in Bloomington (2.15 adjusted odds
ratio in San Francisco divided by .5 adjusted odds ratio in
Bloomington, which are shown in column 6 of table 13), and almost 13
times greater in San Francisco than in Atlanta (2.15 odds ratio in San
Francisco divided by .17 odds ratio in Atlanta), even after the other
differences in claimant characteristics, including where they came
from, were controlled. Other large differences are implied by these
adjusted odds ratios, for both affirmative and defensive cases. The
adjusted odds comparing each immigration court with every other
immigration court are shown in table 15 (for affirmative cases) and
table 16 (for defensive cases).
Table 15: Odds Ratios and Significance Levels of Differences across
Immigration Courts, for Affirmative Asylum Cases:
Court: Arlington;
Reference Court: ARL: [Empty]; Reference Court: ATL: 3.97;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.64;
Reference Court: BLM: 1.40;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.61;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.63;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.58;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.69;
Reference Court: DET: 2.39;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.58;
Reference Court: LOS: 0.80;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.00;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.40;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.71;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.43;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.01;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.09;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.32;
Reference Court: SEA: 0.80.
Court: Atlanta;
Reference Court: ARL: 0.25;
Reference Court: ATL: [Empty]; Reference Court: BAL: 0.16;
Reference Court: BLM: 0.35;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.15;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.16;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.15;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.17;
Reference Court: DET: 0.60;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.15;
Reference Court: LOS: 0.20;
Reference Court: MIA: 0.25;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.10;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.18;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.11;
Reference Court: PHI: 0.25;
Reference Court: SDG: 0.28;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.08;
Reference Court: SEA: 0.20.
Court: Baltimore;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.55;
Reference Court: ATL: 6.18;
Reference Court: BAL: [Empty]; Reference Court: BLM: 2.17;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.94;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.99;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.91;
Reference Court: DEN: 1.08;
Reference Court: DET: 3.72;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.90;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.24;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.55;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.62;
Reference Court: NEW: 1.11;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.68;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.57;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.70;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.50;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.24.
Court: Bloomington;
Reference Court: ARL: 0.72;
Reference Court: ATL: 2.84;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.46;
Reference Court: BLM: [Empty]; Reference Court: BOS: 0.43;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.45;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.42;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.50;
Reference Court: DET: 1.71;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.42;
Reference Court: LOS: 0.57;
Reference Court: MIA: 0.71;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.29;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.51;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.31;
Reference Court: PHI: 0.72;
Reference Court: SDG: 0.78;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.23;
Reference Court: SEA: 0.57.
Court: Boston;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.65;
Reference Court: ATL: 6.55;
Reference Court: BAL: 1.06;
Reference Court: BLM: 2.30;
Reference Court: BOS: [Empty]; Reference Court: CHI: 1.04;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.96;
Reference Court: DEN: 1.14;
Reference Court: DET: 3.94;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.96;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.31;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.65;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.66;
Reference Court: NEW: 1.18;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.72;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.67;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.80;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.53;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.32.
Court: Chicago;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.58;
Reference Court: ATL: 6.27;
Reference Court: BAL: 1.01;
Reference Court: BLM: 2.20;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.96;
Reference Court: CHI: [Empty]; Reference Court: DAL: 0.92;
Reference Court: DEN: 1.10;
Reference Court: DET: 3.77;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.92;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.26;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.58;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.63;
Reference Court: NEW: 1.13;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.69;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.59;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.72;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.51;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.26.
Court: Dallas;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.71;
Reference Court: ATL: 6.81;
Reference Court: BAL: 1.10;
Reference Court: BLM: 2.40;
Reference Court: BOS: 1.04;
Reference Court: CHI: 1.09;
Reference Court: DAL: [Empty]; Reference Court: DEN: 1.19;
Reference Court: DET: 4.10;
Reference Court: HOU: 1.00;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.37;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.71;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.68;
Reference Court: NEW: 1.22;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.75;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.73;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.87;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.55;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.37.
Court: Denver;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.44;
Reference Court: ATL: 5.72;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.93;
Reference Court: BLM: 2.01;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.87;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.91;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.84;
Reference Court: DEN: [Empty]; Reference Court: DET: 3.44;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.84;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.15;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.44;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.57;
Reference Court: NEW: 1.03;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.63;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.46;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.57;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.46;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.15.
Court: Detroit;
Reference Court: ARL: 0.42;
Reference Court: ATL: 1.66;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.27;
Reference Court: BLM: 0.58;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.25;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.27;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.24;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.29;
Reference Court: DET: [Empty]; Reference Court: HOU: 0.24;
Reference Court: LOS: 0.33;
Reference Court: MIA: 0.42;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.17;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.30;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.18;
Reference Court: PHI: 0.42;
Reference Court: SDG: 0.46;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.13;
Reference Court: SEA: 0.33.
Court: Houston;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.72;
Reference Court: ATL: 6.83;
Reference Court: BAL: 1.11;
Reference Court: BLM: 2.40;
Reference Court: BOS: 1.04;
Reference Court: CHI: 1.09;
Reference Court: DAL: 1.00;
Reference Court: DEN: 1.19;
Reference Court: DET: 4.11;
Reference Court: HOU: [Empty]; Reference Court: LOS: 1.37;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.72;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.69;
Reference Court: NEW: 1.23;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.75;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.74;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.88;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.55;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.37.
Court: Los Angeles;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.25;
Reference Court: ATL: 4.98;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.81;
Reference Court: BLM: 1.75;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.76;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.79;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.73;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.87;
Reference Court: DET: 3.00;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.73;
Reference Court: LOS: [Empty]; Reference Court: MIA: 1.25;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.50;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.90;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.54;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.27;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.37;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.40;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.00.
Court: Miami;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.00;
Reference Court: ATL: 3.98;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.64;
Reference Court: BLM: 1.40;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.61;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.63;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.58;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.70;
Reference Court: DET: 2.40;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.58;
Reference Court: LOS: 0.80;
Reference Court: MIA: [Empty]; Reference Court: NYC: 0.40;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.72;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.44;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.01;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.09;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.32;
Reference Court: SEA: 0.80.
Court: New York City;
Reference Court: ARL: 2.51;
Reference Court: ATL: 9.97;
Reference Court: BAL: 1.61;
Reference Court: BLM: 3.51;
Reference Court: BOS: 1.52;
Reference Court: CHI: 1.59;
Reference Court: DAL: 1.46;
Reference Court: DEN: 1.74;
Reference Court: DET: 6.00;
Reference Court: HOU: 1.46;
Reference Court: LOS: 2.00;
Reference Court: MIA: 2.50;
Reference Court: NYC: [Empty]; Reference Court: NEW: 1.79;
Reference Court: ORL: 1.09;
Reference Court: PHI: 2.53;
Reference Court: SDG: 2.74;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.81;
Reference Court: SEA: 2.00.
Court: Newark;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.40;
Reference Court: ATL: 5.56;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.90;
Reference Court: BLM: 1.96;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.85;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.89;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.82;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.97;
Reference Court: DET: 3.35;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.81;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.12;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.40;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.56;
Reference Court: NEW: [Empty]; Reference Court: ORL: 0.61;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.41;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.53;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.45;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.12.
Court: Orlando;
Reference Court: ARL: 2.30;
Reference Court: ATL: 9.14;
Reference Court: BAL: 1.48;
Reference Court: BLM: 3.21;
Reference Court: BOS: 1.40;
Reference Court: CHI: 1.46;
Reference Court: DAL: 1.34;
Reference Court: DEN: 1.60;
Reference Court: DET: 5.50;
Reference Court: HOU: 1.34;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.83;
Reference Court: MIA: 2.30;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.92;
Reference Court: NEW: 1.64;
Reference Court: ORL: [Empty]; Reference Court: PHI: 2.32;
Reference Court: SDG: 2.51;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.74;
Reference Court: SEA: 1.84.
Court: Philadelphia;
Reference Court: ARL: 0.99;
Reference Court: ATL: 3.93;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.64;
Reference Court: BLM: 1.38;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.60;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.63;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.58;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.69;
Reference Court: DET: 2.37;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.58;
Reference Court: LOS: 0.79;
Reference Court: MIA: 0.99;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.39;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.71;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.43;
Reference Court: PHI: [Empty]; Reference Court: SDG: 1.08;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.32;
Reference Court: SEA: 0.79.
Court: San Diego;
Reference Court: ARL: 0.91;
Reference Court: ATL: 3.64;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.59;
Reference Court: BLM: 1.28;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.56;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.58;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.53;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.64;
Reference Court: DET: 2.19;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.53;
Reference Court: LOS: 0.73;
Reference Court: MIA: 0.91;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.36;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.65;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.40;
Reference Court: PHI: 0.92;
Reference Court: SDG: [Empty]; Reference Court: SFO: 0.29;
Reference Court: SEA: 0.73.
Court: San Francisco;
Reference Court: ARL: 3.10;
Reference Court: ATL: 12.33; Reference Court: BAL: 2.00;
Reference Court: BLM: 4.34;
Reference Court: BOS: 1.88;
Reference Court: CHI: 1.97;
Reference Court: DAL: 1.81;
Reference Court: DEN: 2.15;
Reference Court: DET: 7.42;
Reference Court: HOU: 1.80;
Reference Court: LOS: 2.48;
Reference Court: MIA: 3.10;
Reference Court: NYC: 1.24;
Reference Court: NEW: 2.22;
Reference Court: ORL: 1.35;
Reference Court: PHI: 3.13;
Reference Court: SDG: 3.39;
Reference Court: SFO: [Empty]; Reference Court: SEA: 2.48.
Court: Seattle;
Reference Court: ARL: 1.25;
Reference Court: ATL: 4.98;
Reference Court: BAL: 0.81;
Reference Court: BLM: 1.75;
Reference Court: BOS: 0.76;
Reference Court: CHI: 0.79;
Reference Court: DAL: 0.73;
Reference Court: DEN: 0.87;
Reference Court: DET: 3.00;
Reference Court: HOU: 0.73;
Reference Court: LOS: 1.00;
Reference Court: MIA: 1.25;
Reference Court: NYC: 0.50;
Reference Court: NEW: 0.89;
Reference Court: ORL: 0.54;
Reference Court: PHI: 1.27;
Reference Court: SDG: 1.37;
Reference Court: SFO: 0.40;
Reference Court: SEA: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
Note: Values bolded where the odds ratio was significant at the p
