In an announcement earlier this month, USCIS claims to have “reduced overall backlogs by 15%.” This sounds like good news, and it would be–if it were actually true.
The reality, as discussed in the same announcement, is that “USCIS received 10.9 million filings and completed more than 10 million pending cases” in FY 2023 (October 1, 2022 to September 30, 2023). While completing 10 million cases is no small accomplishment, by my math, if the Agency received 10.9 million cases and completed 10 million cases, their backlog has actually increased by 900,000 cases.
So why does USCIS claim that the backlog has been reduced by 15%? The answer hinges on the definition of the term “backlog.” (more…)
Data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review–the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–is notoriously unreliable. Nevertheless, we have to use what’s available. In that spirit, let’s take a look at EOIR’s statistics for Fiscal Year 2023 (which cover the period from October 1, 2022 to September 30, 2023) and see what we can learn. (more…)
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the organization that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts, has released new data about asylum grant rates by country of origin. While EOIR deserves credit for trying to be more transparent, it is difficult to know what to make of these numbers. They are confusing, poorly organized, and–for lack of a better word–strange.
Here, we’ll take a look at the data and try to parse some meaning from EOIR’s madness. (more…)
Question: Who do you think is more likely to deny an asylum case, an Immigration Judge appointed by a Republican president or an Immigration Judge appointed by a Democratic president?
As far as I can tell, no one has ever researched this question before; so our team of statisticians here at The Asylumist spent the last few months crunching the numbers, and we now have our answer. If you’re like me, you might find their conclusion a bit surprising. (more…)
Back in 2019, the Trump Administration ended the long-standing practice of releasing data about our nation’s Asylum Offices. The Biden Administration has not seemed particularly eager to restore transparency, but now, a year and a half after President Biden took office, we finally have some new data from the Asylum Division. Mind you, the data is only current as of December 31, 2021, but we are told more information will be released soon. Since “soon” in asylum world tends to mean “not any time soon,” I’ve decided to write about the information we have now, rather than wait for a second data dump, which may or may not be released in the near future.
The new data gives us a lot to discuss and sheds some light on why cases are moving so slowly. It also raises questions about how the asylum system is working–or not working. (more…)
Way back in 2010, I did a blog post about the Board of Immigration Appeals, where I complained that the Board issues too few decisions and does not provide enough guidance to Immigration Judges. Ten years later, things are no better. In fact, based on the available data, the Board is publishing even fewer decisions these days than it did back in the late aughts. Here, we’ll take a look at the situation in 2010, and then review where things stand now.
Before we get to that, we have to answer a preliminary question: What is the Board of Immigration Appeals? According to the BIA Practice Manual—
The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The Board is responsible for applying the immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Board has been given nationwide jurisdiction to review the orders of Immigration Judges and certain decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to provide guidance to the Immigration Judges, DHS, and others, through published decisions. The Board is tasked with resolving the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations, and to provide clear and uniform guidance to Immigration Judges, DHS, and the general public on the proper interpretation and administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.
Having completed their one published decision for the year, some BIA Board Members take a well-earned rest.
In essence, the BIA is supposed to be the Supreme Court of immigration law. But because the Board issues so few published decisions, it is not fulfilling its duties to provide guidance or ensure that laws are applied uniformly throughout the country. This is not a recent problem.
If you look back at the data from a decade ago, you will see that in 2007, the BIA decide a total of 35,394 cases and had 45 published decisions. In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions, and in 2009, it decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions. This means that for every 1,000 cases the Board decides, it publishes about 1 case. Looked at another way, during 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Board had about 15 Members (judges on the BIA are called Board Members). This means that in its most prolific year (2007), each Board Member would have had to publish three cases. I’m told that publishing a case is a real production, but even so, three cases per year? That seems pretty weak. The not-very-surprising result is that the Board is not providing the guidance that Immigration Judges need, and this contributes to a situation where different adjudicators are interpreting the law in widely inconsistent ways.
Fast forward 10 year and the situation is no better. In FY2016, the Board decided 33,241 cases and in FY2017, it decided 31,820 cases. In each year, the Board published just 27 decisions. In FY2018, the Board decided 29,788 cases and published 38 decisions, and in FY2019, the BIA published 22 decisions (EOIR has not released data about the number of cases adjudicated by the Board in FY2019). Indeed, in 2018 and 2019, the situation is even worse than these numbers suggest. That’s because in 2018, of the 38 published BIA decisions, 15 were actually decided by the Attorney General (meaning only 23 were decided by the BIA). In 2019, the AG published six cases, meaning that the Board itself published a paltry 16 decision, or–given the expanded number of Board Members–less than one published decision per Member.
Let’s digress for one moment to discuss the difference between an Attorney General decision and a BIA decision. The BIA derives its decision-making authority from the Attorney General. This means that the AG has power to decide immigration appeals, but he has given that authority to the specialists on the Board, who presumably know more about immigration law than their boss. However, because decision-making power ultimately comes from the AG, he can “certify” a case to himself and then issue a decision, which has precedential authority over Immigration Judges and over the Board itself. This means that if the Board issues a decision that the AG does not like, he can change it. Prior to the Trump Administration, AGs generally deferred to the Board and rarely certified cases to themselves for decisions. In the last two years of the Obama Administration, for example, the AG issued a total of three published decisions, two in 2015 and one in 2016, as compared to 21 AG decisions in 2018 and 2019 (to be fair, the Trump Administration did not issue any AG decisions in 2017). The main reason for the AG to issue decisions is to more forcefully implement the current Administration’s immigration agenda. Many who work in the field oppose this type of politicization of the immigration law, and organizations such as the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) have been pushing for an independent court system.
Aside from politicization of the law, one result of the AG’s more active role in issuing decisions has been to sideline the BIA. I imagine this is not good for morale. Essentially, the “Supreme Court of Immigration Law” has been relegated to deciding unpublished decisions, which contribute little to improving the overall practice of law.
In any event, it has always surprised me how few decisions the BIA publishes. Chapter 1 of the BIA Practice Manual provides: “Decisions selected for publication meet one or more of several criteria, including but not limited to: the resolution of an issue of first impression; alteration, modification, or clarification of an existing rule of law; reaffirmation of an existing rule of law; resolution of a conflict of authority; and discussion of an issue of significant public interest.” Frankly, it is difficult to believe that fewer than one case in one thousand satisfies these criteria. As I wrote in 2010–
Although it might be more work over the short term, if the Board published more frequently, Immigration Judge decisions would become more consistent–creating less work for the BIA over the long term. It would also make life easier for the federal courts of appeals, saving government resources. Finally–and most important from my point of view–it would create more certainty and predictability for immigrants and their families.
All this remains true. But after three years of the Trump Administration appointing Board Members, many of whom are considered hostile to immigrants, perhaps now is not the time to complain about too few published decisions. Maybe. But I still think there exists a desperate need for guidance and consistency, and even the “unfriendly” Board Members are more inclined to follow the law than our current AG. In addition, there are many mundane, non-political issues that simply need deciding (such as this recent BIA decision). Despite the more hostile make-up of the Board, I still believe–as I believed ten years ago–that the BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.
For years, practitioners and academics have complained about inconsistent decisions at the Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts, and there’s plenty of data to back up this concern. Recently, two sets of cases in my office brought this problem home, and illustrated how luck impacts who receives protection in the U.S. and who does not.
The first set of cases involves two siblings whose uncle was a well-known member of the political opposition. As a result of the uncle’s activities in the early 2000’s, his siblings–including my clients’ father–were all arrested and held in jail for years. Thus, for a good portion of their childhood, my clients grew up without their father. After he was released, the father resumed his life and his children (my clients) eventually came to the United States to study. While they were here, the father was re-arrested for seemingly pretextual reasons. Fearing for their own safety, the siblings filed for asylum. Both cases were referred to Immigration Court, and the siblings hired me for their cases. As far as I could tell, the cases were exactly the same. Neither sibling had engaged in political activity; both cases were based on the relationship with their high-profile uncle and the home government’s persecution of the entire family. Also, we submitted the same evidence in each case and both applicants were found credible. The only difference between the two cases is that the siblings had different Immigration Judges. The first case was before a judge with a 62% denial rate and the second case was before a judge with a 91% denial rate (according to TRAC Immigration). We won the first case and DHS did not appeal,. So in a sense, the second case was different in that one sibling had already been granted asylum. Unfortunately, that was not enough. DHS opposed asylum in the second case (even though they had not appealed the grant in the first case) and the IJ denied relief. The case is currently on appeal.
Sometimes, it may make sense to try to change venue.
The second set of cases involves members of a religious minority who faced persecution by their government and by extremists in their country. These cases were before the Asylum Office. The lead applicants were all related, either as siblings or in-laws, they were members of the same congregation back home, and they faced mostly the same persecution. Also, we submitted similar evidence in each case and all the applicants were deemed credible. Out of four cases in 2019 and 2020, we received three grants and one denial. The main difference between the four lead applicants was that the person who was denied had the strongest case due to past imprisonment in his country. Also, the denied case was the most recent decision, and so we had informed the Asylum Office that other family members were granted asylum on basically the same facts. In the denied case, the Asylum Office found that the applicant suffered past persecution, but found that country conditions had changed, such that the situation was now safe. It seems odd that the Asylum Office would find changed country conditions in one case, but not the others. The referred case is now before an Immigration Court.
So here we have two situations where the applicants presented nearly identical cases, but received different results. Why did this happen? As far as I can tell, the reason is luck: Some adjudicators are more likely to grant asylum than others, and this gives us inconsistent results. Also, some adjudicators seem to be inconsistent from one case to the next, in that their mood at a given moment may influence their decision. And so, the outcome of a case is dependent–at least in part–on the luck of the draw.
This is obviously not a good thing. While I agree with former Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller that we “don’t want decisions on asylum made according to mathematical formulas as if by computers,” I do think disparities are a serious problem, which should be addressed at the policy level. But what can individuals do about the problem of luck in asylum cases?
In thinking about this question, I am reminded of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer–
G-d, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.
But how do we know what we can change? Some things are obvious: We can gather the evidence needed for a case, make an appropriate legal argument, try to weed out inconsistencies, prepare testimony beforehand, dress appropriately for court, etc. For those who can afford it, having a competent attorney can make a big difference. For those who cannot afford legal help, securing pro bono (free) assistance is important (though finding pro bono help is often not easy).
Some things are harder to control. For Immigration Court, it is possible to get an idea about the asylum grant rate for your particular judge (for newer judges, data may not be available). If you find your judge has a particularly high denial rate, you might consider moving to a new jurisdiction in order to change venue to a different court, where you will hopefully get a better judge. I rarely recommend this option to my clients, as moving is largely a crap shoot–the IJ may refuse to transfer the case, you may end up with a worse judge despite the move (and a judge who may be “bad” for most applicants might be “good” for certain types of cases), and you may substantially delay the case. Also, of course, moving to a new state is disruptive and expensive. Despite all this, if you have a particularly difficult judge, it may make sense to try to move the case.
Forum shopping is even less useful for cases at the Asylum Office. While there is some data about the overall grant rates for the different offices, there is no information available about the individual Asylum Officers. Even if such data existed, it would be of little value, since you won’t know who your Officer is until the day of the interview, when it is too late to switch. While it is possible to move to a jurisdiction with an “easier” Asylum Office, given all the variables, this often makes little sense. On the other hand, if you have the flexibility to live anywhere, why not live somewhere with a good Asylum Office?
For the most part, then, you are stuck with your adjudicator, but you have a fair bit of control over the case you present. In my experience, it is more productive to focus on the case itself, rather than worry about who will decide that case. In the end, the absence of control is a fact of life for asylum seekers and for us all. Perhaps a quote from another of my favorite theologian–Saint Augustine–provides an appropriate conclusion here: Pray as though everything depends on G-d. Work as though everything depends on you. At least in this way, you cover all your bases.
Last fall, the Asylum Division cancelled its quarterly stakeholder engagement meeting and postponed the release of data about the various Asylum Offices. Now, finally, that information has been released. The news is generally bad (who would have guessed?), but the data contains some bright spots and surprises–as well as a few mysteries. Here, we’ll take a look at the most recent news from our nation’s Asylum Offices.
First, the data. The Asylum Division has released statistics for FY2019, which ended on September 30, 2019. The data shows that despite the Trump Administration’s hostility towards asylum seekers, many people continue to seek protection in the United States–through the fiscal year, a total of 82,807 new affirmative asylum applications were filed (and remember that some of these cases include dependents, so I imagine the total number of people filing for asylum in FY2019 is well over 100,000). Case completions are still not keeping up with new filings, and the overall asylum backlog continues to grow: From 323,389 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to 339,836 at the end. Throughout the year, the number one source country for new asylum cases was Venezuela. China was number two for most of the year, followed by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico.
In terms of grant rates, the news is fairly negative, but not uniformly so. As an arbitrary base-line, I will use a post I did in February 2016 about Asylum Office data from the second half of FY2015 (April to September 2015). I calculated the percentage of cases granted at each Asylum Office. In crunching the numbers, I discounted cases that were denied because the applicant failed to appear for an interview, but I included cases that were denied solely because the applicant failed to meet the one-year asylum filing deadline. I’ve made the same calculations for the period April to September 2019, and compared the grant rates for both time periods in the chart below.
Whenever a lawyer does math: Beware!
As I mentioned, I did not include “no shows” in my data. For this reason, government statistics about the asylum grant rate will be lower than my numbers, since they include people who failed to appear for their interviews. If I had included “no-shows,” the FY2019 grant rate in Arlington would be only 19.5% (instead of 26.5%, as shown in the chart). The New York grant rate would drop to a paltry 7.1%, and the grant rate in San Francisco–the “best” asylum office–would fall to a still-respectable 54.0%. Arguably, it makes sense to include “no shows,” since some people may not appear due to no fault of their own. However, I chose to leave them out, since I suspect most have either found other relief or have left the country, and I don’t think it is useful to evaluate Asylum Offices based on denials where the applicant never appeared for an interview.
One problem with my comparison is that there are more asylum offices today than there were in 2015. The two new offices are Boston and New Orleans. The Boston office was previously a sub-office of Newark, and the New Orleans office was part of the Houston office (though in truth, I am not sure whether all of New Orleans’s jurisdiction was covered by Houston, or whether some was covered by Arlington). To account for this, the first numbers listed for Houston and Newark for FY2019 is the percentage of cases granted in that office. The numbers in parenthesis for Houston and Newark include cases that would have been within the jurisdictions of those offices in FY2015 (i.e., the New Orleans cases are included with Houston and the Boston cases with Newark). Thus, the parentheticals are useful only for comparison with the FY2015 numbers; if you are just interested in the percentage of cases granted in Houston and New Orleans in FY2019, look only at the first number.
The same chart, but here, I have removed one-year bar denials (reminder: Beware!!).
As you can see, there is an overall decline in the grant rate at most offices. In some cases, this decline is quite significant. One office–Houston–bucked the trend and actually granted a higher percentage of cases than in FY2015.
But perhaps things are not quite as bad as they appear. The numbers in the first chart include cases denied solely because the applicant failed to file asylum on time (remember that you are barred from asylum unless you file within one year of arriving in the U.S. or you meet an exception to that rule). In the second chart, I factored out cases that were denied solely because they were untimely (the Asylum Offices have been identifying late-filed cases and interviewing them; unless the applicant overcomes the one-year bar, the case is referred to Immigration Court without considering the merits of the asylum claim; since they are interviewing many such cases, this is pushing overall denial rates up). Comparing the two fiscal years in chart two, the decline in grant rates is much less severe. Indeed, three offices granted a higher percentage of timely-filed cases in FY2019 than in FY2015.
So what’s happening here? Why did grant rates generally decline? Why did some offices improve? What does all this mean for asylum seekers?
First of all, these numbers must be taken with a big grain of salt (and not just because I am an incompetent mathematician). A lot is going on at each Asylum Office. Different offices have different types of cases, including different source countries, greater or fewer numbers of unaccompanied alien children (“UAC”) cases, and different policies in terms of interviewing untimely applicants. As a result, some offices may be interviewing more “difficult” cases, while other offices are interviewing more “easy” cases. Offices that interview many Central American cases, or many UAC cases, for instance, will likely have lower grant rates than other offices. This is because Central American cases and UAC cases are more likely to be denied than many other types of asylum cases. Also, some offices are more aggressive than others in terms of identifying and interviewing untimely asylum cases. Offices that interview more late-filed cases will likely have a higher denial rate than offices that interview fewer late-filed cases.
Despite all this, it is fairly clear that the overall trend is negative. One obvious reason for this is a series of precedential cases and policy changes during the Trump Administration that have made it more difficult for certain asylum seekers, particularly victims of domestic violence and people who fear harm from Central American gangs. In addition–and I think this is probably less of a factor–the leadership at DHS and DOJ has repeatedly expressed hostility towards asylum seekers and encouraged the rank-and-file to identify and deny fraudulent applications.
Finally, as my colleague Victoria Slatton points out, it’s possible that the negative trend is worse than what the numbers above reflect. In FY2015, the Asylum Division gave priority to UAC cases. Since such cases are more likely to be denied, interviewing more of them may have pushed the overall grant rates down. In FY2019, UAC cases were not given priority, meaning that (probably) fewer UACs were interviewed. All things being equal, fewer UAC cases should mean a higher overall approval rate, but that is not what happened at most Asylum Offices. This may mean that more non-UAC cases are being denied today than in FY2015.
As you can see, there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot is going on behind these numbers. In one important sense, though, things have not changed much in the last four years. Strong cases still usually win; weak cases often fail. For asylum seekers (and their lawyers), we can only control so much of the process. Submitting a case that is well prepared, consistent, and supported by evidence will maximize your chances of success. And as the numbers above show, success is still possible even in these difficult times.
The latest data on asylum grant rates in Immigration Court is out, and as expected, the news is not great. Overall asylum grant rates in court continued to decline in FY 2019, but the news is not all bad. Courts adjudicated a record number of asylum cases this past year: 67,406, up from 42,224 last year and 19,779 in FY2015. Many cases are still being granted. Indeed, even though grant rates are down, in absolute numbers, more asylum cases are being approved than ever (this is because the total number of asylum cases adjudicated is way up). Also, the percentage of applicants represented by attorneys continues to climb (slowly). Here, we’ll take a look at the newest data and what it means for asylum applicants.
Let’s start with the bad news (so no one can accuse me of being an optimist). In FY2019, 69% of asylum seekers were denied asylum or other relief in Immigration Court. This continues a negative trend that began in FY2012, when the overall denial rate was at an all time low–only about 42% of asylum applicants were denied in that glorious year. Since then, denial rates have been steadily climbing. Last year (FY2018), the overall denial rate was 65%. Despite the general negative trend, if we break down the reasons behind the high denial rate, perhaps we can find a silver lining.
On a positive note, courts granted asylum to 19,831 people in FY2019. They are pictured above, celebrating.
One factor affecting the overall denial rate was the large number of decisions for cases where the applicant was not represented by an attorney. For unrepresented applicants, the denial rate was 84%. Interestingly, unrepresented cases move much more quickly than represented cases: 45.3% of unrepresented cases that started in FY2019 were resolved in FY2019. In contrast, only 9.7% of represented cases that began in FY2019 have been decided. I suspect that many of the unrepresented cases are for detained applicants, as such cases tend to go much faster than non-detained cases (since the government does not like to pay for incarceration). Also, it may be that some unrepresented applicants who are recent arrivals in the U.S. have their cases adjudicated on an expedited basis.
Another major factor affecting denial rates is country of origin. Four of the top five source countries for asylum seekers are El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Honduras. Together, these countries represented about 22% of all asylum cases decided in Immigration Court in FY2019. But for various reasons (harsh U.S. laws, difficulty proving nexus), these countries tend to have higher-than-average asylum denial rates–in the range of 80% denials. So if you factor out these four countries, the overall denial rate would be lower (if you are from one of these countries, it is very helpful to talk to a lawyer and think through the most effective way to present your case). You can look up the success rate for people from your country here (this data can be broken down by court, but not by individual judge).
Other factors that contribute to the high denial rate include detained cases and one-year-bar cases, which are both harder to win than non-detained cases and cases filed on time. A final–and unexpected–factor in the high denial rate is the government shut-down of January 2019. During that period, only detained cases were adjudicated, and since such cases are more difficult to win, the denial rate during the shut-down shot up to nearly 75%. This in turn pushed up the overall denial rate for the year.
For asylum seekers who are wondering about the likelihood of success in court, all these variables must be considered. If you are represented by an attorney, if you are not from Central America or Mexico, if you are not detained, and if you file your case on time, the overall asylum denial rate should be significantly better than 69%. So I guess that is good news, sort-of.
But of course, overall denial rates are of little consequence given that grant rates vary by judge (sometimes quite dramatically). To find the name of your Immigration Judge (“IJ”), call 800-898-7180. When the machine answers, follow the instructions and enter your Alien number. You can then press “1” and hear your next court date and–hopefully–the name of your IJ. If your IJ is not listed in the system, it may mean that no one is yet assigned to the case, but you can double check by calling the Immigration Court directly and asking the receptionist whether your case is assigned to a judge. Once you know your judge’s name, you can look here to find asylum denial rates for your particular IJ (for new judges, there may be no data available).
A few points about the individual IJ data: First, it is probably best to look at the most current denial rate (FY2019), since recent (negative) changes in the law may have affected the percentage of cases judges approve. Thus, the older data may be less relevant to a case today. Second, as we discussed, representation rates and country of origin affect overall grant rates. If you scroll to the bottom of the IJ’s page, you can get some idea of the representation rate before that judge, as well as the source countries for asylum seekers that the judge sees. If the IJ adjudicates many unrepresented cases, and/or many cases from Central America and Mexico, this may increase that IJ’s denial rate. Finally, some IJs decide large numbers of detained cases and this would also negatively affect the judge’s grant rate (the data that I see does not list the percentage of detained cases decided by each judge).
Having said all this, I am not sure how useful it is. Unless you move, you have basically no control over who will be your judge. It is better, I think, to focus on what you can control: Gathering evidence and witnesses, preparing your case, and finding a competent attorney. In my experience, most IJs are fair and will listen to your case. The biggest factor in determining whether you win is usually the case itself, and the most productive thing you can do is focus on the variables you can control, and present the strongest case possible.
Finally, I would be remiss not to thank TRAC Immigration for their continued superb work gathering Immigration Court data (often under difficult circumstances). So thank you, TRAC, and keep up the good work.
The indefatigable folks at TRAC Immigration have issued a new report about our nation’s Immigration Courts, and the news is not encouraging: Overall asylum denial rates are the highest we’ve seen in almost two decades. As always with asylum numbers, things are not quite so simple, so let’s take a look at what’s going on.
Fiscal Year 2018 (which ended on September 30, 2018) was noteworthy for several reasons. First, the asylum denial rate reached 65%. This caps a six year trend of increasing denial rates and represents the highest rate of denial in 20 years (between 1986 and 1999, denial rates ranged from 68% to 89%). In some ways, the news from FY2018 is worse than the average denial rate indicates. If you look at TRAC’s month-to-month chart, you can see that denial rates spiked between June 2018 and the end of the fiscal year. Thus, in the last few months of the fiscal year, denial rates were pushing 70%.
Rejection rates also went up after each Immigration Judge received a fancy new “Denied” stamp.
A second way that FY2018 stands out is that Immigration Courts adjudicated more asylum cases than any prior year: 42,224. This figure represents significantly more decisions than FY2017 (30,253) or FY2016 (22,318). Indeed, this is the most asylum cases decided in any one year since at least 1986 (I could not find data older than that).
Despite the higher denial rates, there is a silver lining to the news from FY2018: In absolute terms, more asylum cases were granted in that year (14,200) than in any previous year (in FY2017, courts granted 11,591 cases, and in FY2016, they granted 9,714 cases). Of course, the only reason so many cases were granted is because courts are adjudicating record numbers of cases overall. But these days, we takes our good news where we gets it.
These figures raise an obvious question: Why are denial rates so high?
One factor that is (probably) not to blame is the availability of help from lawyers. For the first time since FY2013, representation rates are going up. When people are represented, they are statistically more likely to win their cases. For example, in FY2016, asylum seekers without lawyers were denied 90% of the time; those with lawyers were denied only 48% of the time. While I think this disparity exaggerates the benefit of lawyers (because people with weak cases are often less likely to have representation), it is still pretty clear that having an attorney increases the likelihood of a successful outcome. Given that more people are represented these days, the increased asylum denial rate is likely not caused by an absence of legal council.
A second reason that I suspect is not to blame are the new Immigration Judges hired since the Trump Administration came into office. Since January 2017, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has significantly expanded the number of IJs nationwide. Most likely, this accounts for the increased number of decisions, but we don’t yet have data on the “Trump” judges’ denial rates. My guess is that the statistics for these new IJs will not differ very much from their more senior colleagues. I could be wrong here, but at least in my experience, the new judges do not seem any tougher than the judges that we have been dealing with for years. Perhaps as they gather more data, TRAC will issue a report about this (and maybe I will be proved wrong – I will be curious to know the answer).
One likely candidate for the increased denial rate is the case Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (AG 2018), which was issued by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions this past June. The decision made asylum more difficult for people fearing harm from non-state actors, in general, and for victims of domestic violence, in particular. After Matter of A-B- was issued, there was a corresponding uptick in asylum denial rates. Even before Matter of A-B-, however, asylum denial rates had increased since the end of the Obama Administration (and indeed, they have been increasing since 2012). This increase might reflect less significant developments in immigration case law, as well as the cultural shift that I imagine accompanies any new Administration (and especially an Administration so openly hostile to non-Americans).
When considering asylum denial rates, one important point about A-B- is that the case is limited in scope. Certain aliens–especially people fleeing domestic and gang violence in Central America and Mexico–will be disproportionately affected, but others will not be affected. Given that a large percentage of asylum cases involve Central Americans and Mexicans, a case like A-B- has a visible impact on overall denial rates, even though the impact of the decision is limited to certain types of cases. This means that while changes in the law have affected the denial rate, that effect is an “average,” and how a particular case is impacted depends on the facts of that case.
Another contributing factor to the higher denial rate may be that more long-term residents are coming into Immigration Court. This happens because the government is aggressively pursuing aliens without lawful status. It also happens because the Asylum Offices are identifying people who have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years, and trying to refer them to court.
Aliens who have been present in the United States for more than one year are often ineligible for asylum due to the one-year filing bar. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is generally more difficult for such people to win their asylum cases. Many people in this position file asylum as a last-ditch effort to remain in the United States. My guess is that as these long-term residents start to receive decisions, many will be denied, and this will contribute to the overall increased denial rate.
We’ll have to see whether the current trend continues. These days, government officials are looking for ways to make asylum more difficult, but they are limited by the law, and so it’s not clear how much higher the denial rate can go. When thinking about denial rates, it is important to remember that certain cases–Matter of A-B- cases, one-year bar cases–are probably driving the increase in denial rates. Other cases are less affected. Either way, the environment these days is not easy for any asylum seeker, and so it is more important than ever to gather evidence and present the strongest case possible.
