Wash Post: How the Atlanta Immigration Court’s Asylum Denial Rate Led One Immigration Lawyer to Leave Practice

The Washington Post has an article that describes the Atlanta Immigration Court’s shockingly low rate of asylum grants — down to two percent — and how the rampant denial of asylum cases affected one immigration lawyer’s ability to continue her practice.  The article, entitled, “In an Immigration Court that Nearly Always Says No, a Lawyer’s Spirit is Broken,” describes immigration lawyer Elizabeth Matherne, who was once one of a relatively small number of Atlanta-based immigration attorneys. The article discusses her desire to not be a lawyer who simply charged clients for cases they could never win, and her efforts to be a zealous advocate. But, while asylum grant rates in some cities (like New York) have actually increased since the surge in Central American migration, the Atlanta court has had the opposite effect. 

As the article states: “In Atlanta, the odds were never easy, but with the tough new reality, Matherne felt there was no conceivable way to reliably win. So for the first time in her career, she started pushing most clients away. She blocked out 10 to 20 hours every week for consultations. Yes, I believe you, she’d say. Your case might have merit in some parts of the country. But it probably won’t work here. ” Without enough cases that she was willing to take on, coupled with the psychological effect of losing and doubting her abilities, it seems, Matherne decided to close her legal practice.

It’s less clear, according to the article, why the asylum grant rates are so low in Atlanta.  “Among the country’s 277 immigration judges — appointed by the attorney general — five work in Atlanta. Compared with those in other cities, they tend to be older. All are men. Four have served since at least the George W. Bush administration. Two are former prosecutors with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Their reasons for rejecting most asylum claims remain unknown, and individual judges are prohibited from giving interviews.”

The Atlanta Immigration Court has gained a reputation in recent years for exhibiting particular harshness towards respondents.  (See an earlier piece by the Huffington Post on the same court).  Understanding what it’s like to represent clients in such an environment seems to be a topic worth further consideration.

-JKoh