Through the Refugee Act of 1980, the United States offers the
prospect of safety to people who flee to America to escape rape,
torture, and even death in their native countries. In order to be
granted asylum, however, an applicant must prove to an asylum
officer or immigration judge that she has a well-founded fear of
persecution in her homeland. The chance of winning asylum should
have little if anything to do with the personality of the official
to whom a case is randomly assigned, but in a ground-breaking and
shocking study, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and
Philip G. Schrag learned that life-or-death asylum decisions are
too frequently influenced by random factors relating to the
decision makers. In many cases, the most important moment in an
asylum case is the instant in which a clerk randomly assigns the
application to an adjudicator. The system, in its current state, is
like a game of chance.
Refugee Roulette is the first analysis of decisions at all four
levels of the asylum adjudication process: the Department of
Homeland Security, the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration
Appeals, and the United States Courts of Appeals. The data reveal
tremendous disparities in asylum approval rates, even when
different adjudicators in the same office each considered large
numbers of applications from nationals of the same country. After
providing a thorough empirical analysis, the authors make
recommendations for future reform. Original essays by eight
scholars and policy makers then discuss the authors' research and
recommendations
Contributors: Bruce Einhorn, Steven Legomsky, Audrey Macklin, M.
Margaret McKeown, Allegra McLeod, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Margaret
Taylor, and Robert Thomas.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!