refugee roulette: disparities in asylum adjudication profs. jaya ramji-nogales, andrew schoenholtz...
TRANSCRIPT
Refugee Roulette:Disparities in Asylum
Adjudication
Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz
and Philip G. Schrag
Affirmative Asylum Applications
Size of DatabasesDatabase Number of Asylum
CasesAsylum Office Decisions,
FY 1999-2005
130,000 (900 asylum officers)
Immigration Court Decisions, Jan. 2000 through August 2004
140,000 (225 judges)
BIA Asylum Decisions, FY 1998-2005
101,000
US Courts of Appeals Decisions, Calendar Years 2004 and 2005
4215
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
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?
Regional Asylum Offices
Asylum Office Regions A and H Grant Rates in APC Cases (Officers with At
Least 50 APC Cases)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
Deviations from Region A Mean for Strong Claim (APC) Countries
(2 of 31 officers deviate from the office mean by more than 50%)
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
Deviations from Region H Mean for Strong Claim (APC) Countries
(27 of 53 Officers deviate by more than 50%)
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
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]
Region APC Grant Rate
Percentage of Officers who Deviate from Regional APC Grant Rate by More than 50%
D 62% 2%
A 35% 6%
C 56% 9%
B 39% 11%
E 26% 18%
F 52% 22%
G 38% 35%
H 27% 51%
Asylum Officer Regions, Single Country Charts
Grant Rates and Deviations from Regional One-Country Means, Officers with At Least 25 Cases
China
Region C – Grant Rates (China)Region C, China Grant Rates, Officers with 25+ cases
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Region C – Officers’ Deviations from Regional China Mean (3/42 Deviate by
More than 50%)
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Region E – Grant RatesRegion E, Grant Rates, China
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57
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%)
-120%-110%-100%-90%-80%-70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%180%190%200%210%220%230%240%250%260%270%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Some Regions Have Much Less Consistency Among
Asylum Officers
Region H – Grant Rates - China
Grant Rates, China, Region H, Officers with 25+ Cases
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Region H – Officers’ Deviations from Regional China Mean
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Grant Rates in China Cases, By Asylum Office Region
[N = 38,748 cases]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A B C D E F G H
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]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
A
C
E
F
G
H
China Grant Rates: All 146 officers who had at least 100 adjudications
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146
And It’s Not Just China…
Region C – India – Grant Rates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Region C – India – 15 of 39 Officers Deviate by More than 50%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
The Immigration Courts
Grant Rates for APC Cases, 2000-2004, in Immigration Courts with More than 1500 Asylum Cases
37%
12%
41%40% 38%
37%
19%
37%
41% 40%
23%
52%
42%
49%
39%
30%
54%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Arlin
gto
n (
1349)
Atlanta
(687)
Baltim
ore
(2304)
Bosto
n (
1440)
Chic
ago (
1663)
Dalla
s (
560)
Detr
oit (
1462)
Housto
n (
796)
Los A
ngele
s (
6819)
Mem
phis
(1049)
Mia
mi (1
9,4
02)
New
York
(27,9
42)
New
ark
(2392)
Orlando (
2974)
Phila
delp
hia
(1512)
San D
iego (
449)
San F
rancis
co (
5659)
TO
TA
L (
78,4
59)
Grant Rates of New York Immigration Judges, APC Cases,
Judges with at Least 100 APC Cases
6%7%
11%
17%19%
23%
27%27%28%29%
37%
45%45%47%
50%52%
55%
60%62%63%
66%
69%69%69%71%
74%76%
77%80%
89%91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
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%)
-100%
-90%-80%
-70%-60%
-50%-40%
-30%
-20%-10%
0%10%
20%
30%40%
50%60%
70%80%
90%
Albanian Cases: New York Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Albanian
Cases 2000-2004 (2173 cases)
5%
25%
31%
47% 48%
53%
58%62% 64%
67%71% 71% 71% 73%
82% 83%
91% 92% 92% 93%96%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
New York Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the New York Mean for Albanian Cases
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Indian Cases: San Francisco Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Indian
Cases 2000-2004 (3114 cases)
3%
8%
18%21%
35%
42%
48%50%
52% 53% 55% 56% 56%
63%66%
71%73%
84%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 (58)
2 (110)
3 (84)
4 (153)
5 (188)
6 (143)
7 (151)
8 (50)
9 (221)
10 (146)
11 (276)
12 (225)
13 (252)
14 (189)
15 (185)
16 (217)
17 (263)
18 (203)
CourtMean(3198)
San Francisco Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the San Francisco Mean
for Indian Cases (3114 Cases)
-93%
-84%
-66%-60%
-34%
-19%
-8%-4%
1% 3% 5% 7% 7%
21%27%
37%40%
61%
-110%
-100%
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Chinese Cases: Los Angeles Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Chinese
Cases 2000-2004 (2579 cases)
9%12% 13%
16% 16%19%
26%30% 30% 31% 32%
34% 34%
41% 42%
50% 51%
60% 60% 62% 62%
81%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 (1
17)
2 (
68)
3 (1
37)
4 (
81)
5 (
62)
6 (1
56)
7 (1
89)
8 (1
24)
9 (
76)
10 (9
6)
11 (2
71)
12 (1
59)
13 (7
6)
14 (1
58)
15 (1
03)
16 (7
8)
17 (9
9)
18 (9
9)
19 (5
8)
20 (1
36)
21 (1
18)
22 (1
18)
Court M
ean (2
745)
Los Angeles Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the Los Angeles Mean for Chinese Cases
-90%
-80%-70%
-60%-50%
-40%-30%
-20%
-10%0%
10%20%
30%40%
50%60%
70%
80%90%
100%110%
120%130%
140%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Colombian Cases: Miami Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Colombian
Cases 2000-2004 (8214 cases)
5% 6% 7%11% 13% 13%
15% 16%18% 19% 21% 21%
25% 25%
34% 35%39%
46%49%
58%
77%
88%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 (4
26)
2 (1
62)
3 (3
82)
4 (3
86)
5 (2
55)
6 (4
37)
7 (2
73)
8 (5
19)
9 (3
21)
10 (3
93)
11 (3
99)
12 (3
70)
13 (3
26)
14 (3
62)
15 (4
43)
16 (3
50)
17 (5
00)
18 (5
41)
19 (2
06)
20 (2
79)
21 (5
50)
22 (3
34)
Cour
t Mea
n(8
265)
Miami Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the Miami Mean for Colombian Cases
-84% -82% -77%
-65%-58% -57%
-49% -47%-39% -37%
-30% -29%-19% -18%
13% 15%
30%
54%63%
93%
155%
193%
-100%-90%-80%-70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%180%190%200%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Effect of Representation on Grant Rate
16.30%
45.60%
89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Unrepresented Represented Represented byGeorgetown
University's Clinic
Effect of Dependents on Grant Rates
42.3%
48.2%
38%
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
No Dependents One Dependent
Effect of Judge's Gender on Grant Rates
53.8%
37.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
78 Female Judges 169 Male Judges
Effect of Prior Work Experience on Grant Rates
39.6% 38.9% 37.4%
55.4%52.3%
46.3%47.1% 48.2%44.2%
41.1%43.2%
39.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Experience No Experience
Effect of Prior INS/DHS Experience on Grant Rates
47.9%43.7%
40.7%
30.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No experience 1 to 5 Years 6 to 10 years 11 or more years
Grant Rates by Gender and Prior Work Experience
33.940.5
35.339.6
43.236.5
49.8
56.8
46.1
59.464
49.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
GovernmentExperience
NoGovernmentExperience
DHS/INSExperience
No DHS/INSExperience
NGOExperience
No NGOExperience
Male Judge Female Judge
Grant Rate by Gender, Representation, and DHS/INS Experience
41.837.7
14.3 14.3
60.6
48.5
31.4
13.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Representation andNo DHS/INSExperience
Representation andINS/DHS Experience
No Representationand No DHS/INS
Experience
No Representationand DHS/INSExperience
Male judge Female judge
The Board of Immigration Appeals
All Immigration Cases Appealed from Board of Immigration Appeals to Federal
Courts of Appeals
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2002 2003
Percent of cases with panel opinions Percent of cases remanded by Board
1000
. . . . .Cases/month appealed to circuits
Appeals to US courts
800
600
400
200
Percentage of BIA Asylum Decisions Favorable to Applicants, By Type of Decision, FY 98-00 and FY 03-05
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
FY 98 FY99 FY00 FY 03 FY 04 FY05
Single member with short opinion
Affirmance without opinion
Single member (AWO + shortopinions)All asylum decisions
BIA Asylum Grants and Remands as a Percentage of all Cases (Excludes Cases Coded by BIA as Not
Favoring Either Applicant or Government)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
BIA Grants and Remands, Showing Representation (N = 9365 Appeals)
0%
5%10%
15%20%
25%30%
35%40%
45%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Unrepresented All cases Represented
The Drop in the Rate of BIA Decisions Favorable to Asylum Applicants from APCs
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2005
All APC cases (15 countries) APC represented cases
The Drop in Rate of Decisions Favorable to Asylum Applicants from Individual APCs, FY 2001 vs. 2002
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
FY 2001
FY 2002
The U.S. Courts of Appeals
Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 3d Cir Judges with at least 25 Cases,
2004-05 (N=784 votes cast)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Individual Judges’ Deviations from 12% Circuit Mean Rate of Votes to Remand,
3d Cir., 2004-05 (Judges with 25 or More Votes)(Only 1 of 16 Judges Deviates from Circuit Mean by More than 50%)
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
3d Circuit Remand Vote Rates by Party of
Appointing President, 25+ cases
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rep. appointees (12%)
Dem. appointees (12%)
Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 6th Cir Judges with at least 23 Cases,
2004-05 (N=385 votes cast)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Individual Judges’ Deviations from 11.4% Circuit Mean Rate of Votes to Remand,
6th Cir., 2004-05 (Judges with 23 or More Votes)(7 of 13 Judges Deviate from Circuit Mean by More than 50%)
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
6th Circuit Remand Vote Rates
by Party of Appointing President, 23+ cases
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Democratic appointees 14.6%
Republican appointees 9.3%Rep. Presiden
Remand Rates by Circuits, all 4215 asylum appeals, 2004-05
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2004 10.30% 10% 7.10% 1.40% 4.30% 8.70% 33.90% 14.10% 18.30% 8.80% 4.40% 14.40%
2005 14.50% 17.60% 14.30% 2.40% 3.80% 16.50% 37.70% 7% 20.90% 9.40% 2.60% 16.40%
2004-05 12.80% 17.10% 10.90% 1.90% 4.10% 12.70% 36.10% 11.30% 19.50% 9.10% 3.80% 15.40%
1st 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th ALL
Federal Courts of Appeals Votes to Reverse and/or Remand
(Asylum Cases in Red, Civil Cases in Blue) (Prisoner Cases Excluded)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
4th
11
th
5th
8th
10
th
1st
3d
6th 2d
9th
7th
4th
11
th
5th
8th
10
th
1st
3d
6th 2d
9th
7th
Federal Appeals Circuit
Remand Rates by Circuits, the 2361 asylum appeals from “asylee-producing
countries,” 2004-05
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1st(39)
2d(363)
3d(185)
4th(161)
5th(73)
6th(131)
7th(77)
8th(54)
9th(1100)
10th(22)
11th(156)
ALL(2361)