I recently bumped into a factoid that wasn't unexpected but rather drastic: the rate of people passing asylum hearing in immigration courts can vary from 10% to 75% based on individual judges.

Assuming that there isn't a great deal of discrepancy between asylum seekers seeking specific judges, the chances are that the judges aren't operating uniformly (and seemingly, at least one of the two extremes might doing something wrong).

Is there a review process for Asylum seeking cases in immigration court by a neutral 3rd party, that can verify the validity of the results?

I'm especially interested in reviews of successful Asylum grantees, since I assume the failed applicants have their lawyers pushing for reviews/appeals after rejection; but nobody will go and complain about successful Asylum hearings.

  • source of factoid?
    – BobE
    Jul 3 '18 at 16:30
  • @BobE - one of like 20 tabs I had open looking into an earlier question that got VTCed. It was some pro-immigration web site so I doubt they would intentionally skew the higher rate higher. Does that really matter to the core of the question? It'd be a big slog to go seek for it in my tab history.
    – user4012
    Jul 3 '18 at 17:26
  • just wanted it for my own information, I'll look myself. thx
    – BobE
    Jul 3 '18 at 18:54
  • see report from Syracuse University -Transactional Records Clearing house [trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/490/] - haven't read yet but seems to get close to your question. Of course "reviews" of cases is likey to be the writer's opinion or interpretation.
    – BobE
    Jul 3 '18 at 19:05
  • @BobE - the question was asking for a formal judicial/legal/academic process more than some personal reviews, yes.
    – user4012
    Jul 3 '18 at 19:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .