Refugee Roulette:
Disparities in Asylum
Adjudication
Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales,
Andrew Schoenholtz
and Philip G. Schrag
Affirmative Asylum Applications
Size of Databases
Database
Number of Asylum
Cases
Asylum Office Decisions,
FY 1999-2005
Immigration Court
Decisions, Jan. 2000
through August 2004
BIA Asylum Decisions, FY
1998-2005
130,000 (900 asylum
officers)
US Courts of Appeals
Decisions, Calendar Years
2004 and 2005
4215
140,000 (225 judges)
101,000
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)
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
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
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%)
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%
-50%
Deviations from Region H Mean for
Strong Claim (APC) Countries
(27 of 53 Officers deviate by more than 50%)
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
1
-50%
-100%
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
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
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%)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
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 Rates
Region E, Grant Rates, China
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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%)
270%
260%
250%
240%
230%
220%
210%
200%
190%
180%
170%
160%
150%
140%
130%
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%
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
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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
400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
1
-50%
-100%
-150%
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]
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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]
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
C
E
F
G
H
China Grant Rates: All 146 officers who
had at least 100 adjudications
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
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%
15 0 %
10 0 %
50%
0%
1
- 50%
- 10 0 %
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
42%
39%
30%
TOTAL (78,459)
52%
San Francisco (5659)
37%
San Diego (449)
40%
Philadelphia (1512)
50%
Orlando (2974)
Newark (2392)
New York (27,942)
Miami (19,402)
41%
Memphis (1049)
Los Angeles (6819)
37%
Houston (796)
20%
Detroit (1462)
38%
Dallas (560)
37%
40%
Chicago (1663)
41%
Boston (1440)
Baltimore (2304)
Atlanta (687)
40%
Arlington (1349)
Grant Rates for APC Cases, 2000-2004, in Immigration
Courts with More than 1500 Asylum Cases
60%
54%
49%
40%
30%
23%
19%
12%
10%
0%
Grant Rates of New York Immigration
Judges, APC Cases,
Judges with at Least 100 APC Cases
100%
91%
89%
90%
80%
80%
74%
69% 69% 69%
70%
76%
77%
71%
66%
60%
62% 63%
60%
55%
52%
50%
50%
47%
45% 45%
40%
37%
30%
27% 27%
28%
29%
23%
20%
17%
19%
11%
10%
6%
7%
0%
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%)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
-100%
Albanian Cases: New York Immigration Court
Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Albanian
Cases 2000-2004 (2173 cases)
110%
96%
100%
91%
90%
82%
92%
92%
93%
83%
80%
71%
70%
62%
64%
67%
71%
71%
73%
67%
58%
60%
53%
47%
50%
48%
40%
31%
30%
25%
20%
10%
5%
(8
6
10 )
(1
50
)
11
(1
70
)
12
(8
7)
13
(1
08
)
14
(1
20
)
15
(1
13
)
16
(1
25
)
17
(1
17
)
18
(1
36
)
19
(1
10
)
20
(5
C
4)
ou
21
rt
(1
M
12
ea
)
n
(2
41
8)
9
(9
3)
(8
1)
8
7
(1
24
)
6
(6
2)
(7
6)
5
4
(7
0)
(9
3)
3
2
1
(8
6)
0%
New York Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations
from the New York Mean for Albanian Cases
60%
40%
20%
0%
1
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
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)
90%
84%
80%
71%
70%
73%
66%
63%
60%
48%
50%
52%
53%
9
(221)
10
(146)
55%
56%
56%
52%
50%
42%
40%
35%
30%
21%
18%
20%
8%
10%
3%
0%
1
(58)
2
(110)
3
(84)
4
(153)
5
(188)
6
(143)
7
(151)
8
(50)
11
(276)
12
(225)
13
(252)
14
(189)
15
(185)
16
(217)
17
(263)
18
Court
(203) Mean
(3198)
San Francisco Immigration Court Judges’
Deviations from the San Francisco Mean
for Indian Cases (3114 Cases)
70%
61%
60%
50%
37%
40%
40%
27%
30%
21%
20%
10%
1%
3%
9
10
5%
7%
7%
11
12
13
0%
-10%
1
2
3
4
5
-20%
-19%
-30%
-34%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-60%
-70%
-66%
-80%
-84%
-90%
-100%
-110%
6
-93%
7
-8%
8
-4%
14
15
16
17
18
Chinese Cases: Los Angeles Immigration Court
Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Chinese
Cases 2000-2004 (2579 cases)
90%
81%
80%
70%
60%
60%
62%
62%
60%
50%
51%
50%
41%
40%
30%
30%
32%
34%
34%
36%
26%
20%
10%
30%
31%
42%
9%
12%
13%
16%
16%
19%
(1
56
)
7
(1
89
)
8
(1
24
)
9
(7
6)
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
Co
)
2
ur
2
tM
(1
18
ea
)
n
(2
74
5)
6
(6
2)
(8
1)
5
4
(1
37
)
(6
8)
3
2
1
(1
17
)
0%
Los Angeles Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations
from the Los Angeles Mean for Chinese Cases
140%
130%
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
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)
100%
88%
90%
77%
80%
70%
58%
60%
46%
50%
49%
39%
40%
34%
35%
21%
12 (370)
25%
25%
14 (362)
21%
11 (399)
8 (519)
18%
10 (393)
16%
9 (321)
15%
7 (273)
3 (382)
6 (437)
7%
13%
5 (255)
6%
11%
13%
4 (386)
5%
2 (162)
10%
1 (426)
20%
19%
13 (326)
30%
30%
Court Mean
(8265)
22 (334)
21 (550)
20 (279)
19 (206)
18 (541)
17 (500)
16 (350)
15 (443)
0%
Miami Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations
from the Miami Mean for Colombian Cases
200%
190%
180%
170%
160%
150%
140%
130%
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
-100%
193%
155%
93%
63%
54%
30%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-19% -18%
-39% -37%
-49% -47%
-65%
-84% -82%
-77%
-58% -57%
-30% -29%
13%
15%
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Effect of Representation
on Grant Rate
100%
89%
90%
80%
70%
60%
45.60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
16.30%
10%
0%
Unrepresented
Represented
Represented by
Georgetown
University's Clinic
Effect of Dependents on Grant Rates
50%
48.2%
48%
46%
44%
42.3%
42%
40%
38%
No Dependents
One Dependent
Effect of Judge's Gender on
Grant Rates
60%
53.8%
50%
37.3%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
78 Female Judges
169 Male Judges
Effect of Prior Work Experience on Grant Rates
60%
55.4%
48.2%
47.1%
50%
52.3%
44.2%
39.6%
38.9%
40%
43.2%
41.1%
46.3%
39.5%
37.4%
30%
20%
10%
ic
e
ia
Pr
i
va
te
A
ca
Pr
ac
t
de
m
O
N
G
ili
ta
ry
M
N
S
S/
I
D
H
G
ov
er
nm
en
t
0%
Experience
No Experience
Effect of Prior INS/DHS Experience on Grant Rates
60%
50%
47.9%
43.7%
40.7%
40%
30.6%
30%
20%
10%
0%
No experience
1 to 5 Years
6 to 10 years
11 or more years
Grant Rates by Gender and Prior
Work Experience
70
49.8
50
40
59.4
56.8
60
49.9
46.1
40.5
35.3
33.9
64
39.6
43.2
36.5
30
20
10
0
Government
Experience
No
Government
Experience
DHS/INS
Experience
No DHS/INS
Experience
Male Judge
Female Judge
NGO
Experience
No NGO
Experience
Grant Rate by Gender, Representation, and
DHS/INS Experience
70
60.6
60
48.5
50
41.8
40
37.7
31.4
30
20
14.3
14.3 13.6
10
0
Representation and Representation and
No DHS/INS
INS/DHS Experience
Experience
Male judge
No Representation
and No DHS/INS
Experience
Female judge
No Representation
and DHS/INS
Experience
The Board of Immigration Appeals
All Immigration Cases Appealed
from Board of Immigration Appeals to Federal
Courts of Appeals
80%
Appeals to US
courts
70%
1000
60%
800
50%
600
40%
30%
400
20%
200
10%
0%
2002
. . . . .Cases/month
appealed to circuits
Percent of cases with panel opinions
2003
Percent of cases remanded by Board
40%
Percentage of BIA Asylum Decisions
Favorable to Applicants, By Type of
Decision, FY 98-00 and FY 03-05
35%
30%
25%
Single member with short opinion
20%
Affirmance without opinion
15%
Single member (AWO + short
opinions)
All asylum decisions
10%
5%
0%
FY 98
FY99
FY00
FY 03
FY 04
FY05
BIA Asylum Grants and Remands as a Percentage
of all Cases (Excludes Cases Coded by BIA as Not
Favoring Either Applicant or Government)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
BIA Grants and Remands, Showing Representation
(N = 9365 Appeals)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1998
1999
2000
Unrepresented
2001
2002
All cases
2003
2004
Represented
2005
The Drop in the Rate of BIA Decisions
Favorable to Asylum Applicants from APCs
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
FY 2001
FY 2002
All APC cas es (15 countries )
FY 2005
APC repres ented cas es
The Drop in Rate of Decisions
Favorable to Asylum Applicants from
Individual APCs, FY 2001 vs. 2002
80%
70%
60%
50%
FY 2001
FY 2002
40%
30%
20%
10%
Ve
ne
zu
el
a
us
si
a
R
Ira
n
M
au
ri t
an
ia
Pa
ki
st
an
In
di
a
ai
ti
H
Al
ba
ni
a
Ar
m
en
ia
Br
az
i
C
am l
er
oo
n
C
hi
na
C
ol
om
bi
a
Et
hi
op
ia
G
ui
ne
a
0%
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)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
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%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
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
25%
20%
15%
10%
Rep. appointees (12%)
Dem. appointees (12%)
5%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases,
6th Cir Judges with at least 23 Cases,
2004-05 (N=385 votes cast)
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
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%)
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
-100%
-150%
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
35%
30%
25%
Democratic appointees 14.6%
Rep.
Pres
iden
Republican appointees 9.3%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Remand Rates by Circuits, all 4215
asylum appeals, 2004-05
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1st
2d
3d
4th
5th
2004
10.30%
10%
7.10%
1.40%
4.30%
2005
14.50% 17.60% 14.30% 2.40%
2004-05 12.80% 17.10% 10.90% 1.90%
6th
7th
8th
11th
ALL
8.70% 33.90% 14.10% 18.30% 8.80%
4.40%
14.40%
3.80%
16.50% 37.70%
20.90% 9.40%
2.60%
16.40%
4.10%
12.70% 36.10% 11.30% 19.50% 9.10%
3.80%
15.40%
7%
9th
10th
Federal Courts of Appeals
Votes to Reverse and/or Remand
(Asylum Cases in Red, Civil Cases in Blue)
(Prisoner Cases Excluded)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Federal Appeals Circuit
7th
9th
2d
6th
3d
1st
10th
8th
5th
11th
4th
7th
9th
2d
6th
3d
1st
10th
8th
5th
11th
4th
0%
Remand Rates by Circuits, the 2361
asylum appeals from “asylee-producing
countries,” 2004-05
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1st
(39)
2d
(363)
3d
(185)
4th
(161)
5th
(73)
6th
(131)
7th
(77)
8th
(54)
9th
10th
(1100) (22)
11th ALL
(156) (2361)