Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag."— Presentation transcript:

1 Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag

2 Affirmative Asylum Applications

3 Size of Databases DatabaseNumber of Asylum Cases Asylum Office Decisions, FY ,000 (900 asylum officers) Immigration Court Decisions, Jan through August ,000 (225 judges) BIA Asylum Decisions, FY ,000 US Courts of Appeals Decisions, Calendar Years 2004 and

4 The 15 Asylee-producing Countries (APCs) Albania Armenia Cameroon China Colombia Ethiopia Guinea* Haiti India Liberia Mauritania* Pakistan Russia Togo* Venezuela* * Not included in Asylum Office Studies

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

6 Regional Asylum Offices

7 Asylum Office Regions A and H Grant Rates in APC Cases (Officers with At Least 50 APC Cases)

8 Deviations from Region A Mean for Strong Claim (APC) Countries (2 of 31 officers deviate from the office mean by more than 50%)

9 Deviations from Region H Mean for Strong Claim (APC) Countries (27 of 53 Officers deviate by more than 50%)

10 Grant Rates and Percentage of Officers (with at Least 50 cases) who Deviate by More than 50% from Regional APC Rates [N = 132,754 cases] RegionAPC Grant Rate Percentage of Officers who Deviate from Regional APC Grant Rate by More than 50% D62%2% A35%6% C56%9% B39%11% E26%18% F52%22% G38%35% H27%51%

11 Asylum Officer Regions, Single Country Charts Grant Rates and Deviations from Regional One-Country Means, Officers with At Least 25 Cases

12 China

13 Region C – Grant Rates (China)

14 Region C – Officers’ Deviations from Regional China Mean (3/42 Deviate by More than 50%)

15 Region E – Grant Rates

16 Region E (which shows less consistency in Chinese adjudications than Region C). Officers’ Deviations from Regional China Mean (17/57 Deviate by More than 50%)

17 Some Regions Have Much Less Consistency Among Asylum Officers

18 Region H – Grant Rates - China

19 Region H – Officers’ Deviations from Regional China Mean

20 Grant Rates in China Cases, By Asylum Office Region [N = 38,748 cases]

21 Percentage of Officers Deviating from Regional China Mean Grant Rates, By Region, Officers with At Least 50 China Cases (Regions B and D Did Not Have Enough Such Officers to Chart) [N = 37,909 cases]

22 China Grant Rates: All 146 officers who had at least 100 adjudications

23 And It’s Not Just China…

24 Region C – India – Grant Rates

25 Region C – India – 15 of 39 Officers Deviate by More than 50%

26 The Immigration Courts

27 Grant Rates for APC Cases, , in Immigration Courts with More than 1500 Asylum Cases

28 Grant Rates of New York Immigration Judges, APC Cases, Judges with at Least 100 APC Cases

29 New York Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the New York Mean, APC Cases, Judges with 100 or More APC Cases (9 of 31 judges deviate by more than 50%)

30 Albanian Cases: New York Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Albanian Cases (2173 cases)

31 New York Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the New York Mean for Albanian Cases

32 Indian Cases: San Francisco Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Indian Cases (3114 cases)

33 San Francisco Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the San Francisco Mean for Indian Cases (3114 Cases)

34 Chinese Cases: Los Angeles Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Chinese Cases (2579 cases)

35 Los Angeles Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the Los Angeles Mean for Chinese Cases

36 Colombian Cases: Miami Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Colombian Cases (8214 cases)

37 Miami Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the Miami Mean for Colombian Cases

38 Effect of Representation on Grant Rate

39

40

41

42

43 Grant Rates by Gender and Prior Work Experience

44 Grant Rate by Gender, Representation, and DHS/INS Experience

45 The Board of Immigration Appeals

46 All Immigration Cases Appealed from Board of Immigration Appeals to Federal Courts of Appeals Cases/month appealed to circuits Appeals to US courts

47 Percentage of BIA Asylum Decisions Favorable to Applicants, By Type of Decision, FY and FY 03-05

48 BIA Asylum Grants and Remands as a Percentage of all Cases (Excludes Cases Coded by BIA as Not Favoring Either Applicant or Government)

49 BIA Grants and Remands, Showing Representation (N = 9365 Appeals)

50 The Drop in the Rate of BIA Decisions Favorable to Asylum Applicants from APCs

51 The Drop in Rate of Decisions Favorable to Asylum Applicants from Individual APCs, FY 2001 vs. 2002

52 The U.S. Courts of Appeals

53 Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 3d Cir Judges with at least 25 Cases, (N=784 votes cast)

54 Individual Judges’ Deviations from 12% Circuit Mean Rate of Votes to Remand, 3d Cir., (Judges with 25 or More Votes) (Only 1 of 16 Judges Deviates from Circuit Mean by More than 50%)

55 3d Circuit Remand Vote Rates by Party of Appointing President, 25+ cases

56 Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 6th Cir Judges with at least 23 Cases, (N=385 votes cast)

57 Individual Judges’ Deviations from 11.4% Circuit Mean Rate of Votes to Remand, 6th Cir., (Judges with 23 or More Votes) (7 of 13 Judges Deviate from Circuit Mean by More than 50%)

58 6th Circuit Remand Vote Rates by Party of Appointing President, 23+ cases

59 Remand Rates by Circuits, all 4215 asylum appeals,

60 Federal Courts of Appeals Votes to Reverse and/or Remand (Asylum Cases in Red, Civil Cases in Blue) (Prisoner Cases Excluded)

61 Remand Rates by Circuits, the 2361 asylum appeals from “asylee-producing countries,”


Download ppt "Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google