Who Gets Asylum? New Analysis of EOIR Data from Kate Morrissey and Lauryn Schroeder of the San Diego Union-Tribune

A new analysis of U.S. immigration court data by Kate Morrissey and Lauryn Schroeder of the San Diego Union-Tribune focuses on asylum decisions in immigration court and is worth a close read. According to the authors, “[a]n asylum seeker’s chances at protection hinge on numerous factors that often seem arbitrary — from location to nationality to individual judge assigned.”

Reviewing a decade of EOIR decisions in asylum cases, the authors found that immigration judges granted asylum about 19 percent of the time. Those who remained detained during the adjudication of their asylum claim were most likely to be ordered deported (74 percent of cases).

The article also discusses possible systemic bias against asylum seekers based on race and country of origin. They quote asylum expert Professor Karen Musalo, director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at UC Hastings College of the Law, explaining: “[E]ven though the refugee definition is supposed to be applied in a neutral way, the same way to all nationalities, that has never been the case in the U.S.”

Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, contributed to the report, acknowledging that immigration judges may come out differently even when deciding cases that have the same set of facts: “It’s not unusual for people looking at the same set of facts and same set of rules to have differing opinions about how much weight to give evidence and what the conclusion should be.”

Finally, the authors also discuss the importance of appeal in light of high denial rates in asylum cases. Attorneys interviewed explained that they “worry that more and more asylum seekers will have to go to the circuit courts to be granted relief.”

IE