1 / 61

R e f u g e e R o u l e t t e : Disparities in Asylum Adjudication

R e f u g e e R o u l e t t e : Disparities in Asylum Adjudication. Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag. Affirmative Asylum Applications. Size of Databases. Albania Armenia Cameroon China Colombia Ethiopia Guinea* Haiti. India Liberia Mauritania*

amish
Download Presentation

R e f u g e e R o u l e t t e : Disparities in Asylum Adjudication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

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

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

  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]

  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, 2000-2004, 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 2000-2004 (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 2000-2004 (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 2000-2004 (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 2000-2004 (8214 cases)

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

  38. Effect of Representation on Grant Rate

  39. Grant Rates by Gender and Prior Work Experience

  40. Grant Rate by Gender, Representation, and DHS/INS Experience

  41. The Board of Immigration Appeals

  42. All Immigration Cases Appealed from Board of Immigration Appeals to Federal Courts of Appeals Appeals to US courts 1000 800 600 400 200 . . . . .Cases/month appealed to circuits

  43. Percentage of BIA Asylum Decisions Favorable to Applicants, By Type of Decision, FY 98-00 and FY 03-05

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

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

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

More Related