Comments on: Don’t Apply for Asylum in Atlanta http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/05/dont_apply_for.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:51:16 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Frank http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/05/dont_apply_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-53730 Frank Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:24:34 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/05/dont-apply-for-asylum-in-atlanta.html#comment-53730 Thanks much for those contextualizing comments. Thanks much for those contextualizing comments.

]]> By: Matt http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/05/dont_apply_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-53729 Matt Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:42:34 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/05/dont-apply-for-asylum-in-atlanta.html#comment-53729 This was a pretty good article about a paper that sounds good. But, it's not anything that is news to anyone regularly working in immigration, or at least not on asylum claims. It's been an open secret (or not even a secret) for a _long_ time that different judges give massively different grant rates. If you get 3 judges or whatever w/ bad grant rates in one place then it's no good to apply there. The BIA rubber-stamp approach that denies justice and clogs the district courts was part of the Bush/Ashcroft plan to get rid of the case back-log. Rather than, say, doing this by increasing the size of the BIA or even of IJs and asylum officers so that fewer cases needed to go to appeal the most 'liberal' members of the BIA were dismissed or reassigned and the core 'conservative' group was kept. This group now just rubber-stamps nearly all denials leading the circuit courts to have to do review. It's a terrible move. (That said, the US still has, along with Canada, _by far_ the highest over-all grant rate for asylum applicants so while we do many things very badly at least we do not have an over-all single-diget grant rate as do many (perhaps most) European countries.) This was a pretty good article about a paper that sounds good. But, it’s not anything that is news to anyone regularly working in immigration, or at least not on asylum claims. It’s been an open secret (or not even a secret) for a _long_ time that different judges give massively different grant rates. If you get 3 judges or whatever w/ bad grant rates in one place then it’s no good to apply there. The BIA rubber-stamp approach that denies justice and clogs the district courts was part of the Bush/Ashcroft plan to get rid of the case back-log. Rather than, say, doing this by increasing the size of the BIA or even of IJs and asylum officers so that fewer cases needed to go to appeal the most ‘liberal’ members of the BIA were dismissed or reassigned and the core ‘conservative’ group was kept. This group now just rubber-stamps nearly all denials leading the circuit courts to have to do review. It’s a terrible move. (That said, the US still has, along with Canada, _by far_ the highest over-all grant rate for asylum applicants so while we do many things very badly at least we do not have an over-all single-diget grant rate as do many (perhaps most) European countries.)

]]> By: Andrea http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/05/dont_apply_for.html/comment-page-1#comment-53728 Andrea Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:31:52 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/05/dont-apply-for-asylum-in-atlanta.html#comment-53728 Don't forget, there's a difference between having an affirmative case decided by an asylum officer (as in Well-Founded Fear) and a defensive case decided by an immigration judge (as in the study.) The officers are much, much preferred by lawyers and clients because the hearings are less confrontational (in an office instead of a courtroom with a prosecutor) and the officers are sometimes more trained and experienced than the luck-of-the-draw political appointee you may get for an immigration judge. And at least you get an extra level of review before the BIA rubber stamps whatever egregious behavior your IJ exhibited (the article accurately notes Ashcroft's work in essentially stripping immigrants of real judicial review.) The system is broken badly - and let's not forget this isn't just a sad domestic policy thing, it's our obligations under the Refugee Convention that are at stake. My heart breaks thinking about how many people with legitimate asylum claims terrible IJs have ordered deported to their countries, sending them to their deaths. Don’t forget, there’s a difference between having an affirmative case decided by an asylum officer (as in Well-Founded Fear) and a defensive case decided by an immigration judge (as in the study.) The officers are much, much preferred by lawyers and clients because the hearings are less confrontational (in an office instead of a courtroom with a prosecutor) and the officers are sometimes more trained and experienced than the luck-of-the-draw political appointee you may get for an immigration judge. And at least you get an extra level of review before the BIA rubber stamps whatever egregious behavior your IJ exhibited (the article accurately notes Ashcroft’s work in essentially stripping immigrants of real judicial review.)

The system is broken badly – and let’s not forget this isn’t just a sad domestic policy thing, it’s our obligations under the Refugee Convention that are at stake. My heart breaks thinking about how many people with legitimate asylum claims terrible IJs have ordered deported to their countries, sending them to their deaths.

]]>