Library Catalog
Amazon cover image
Image from Amazon.com

Immigration Judges and U.S. Asylum Policy / Banks Miller, Jennifer S. Holmes, Linda Camp Keith.

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextSeries: Pennsylvania Studies in Human RightsPublisher: Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, [2014]Copyright date: ©2015Description: 1 online resource (248 p.) : 13 illusContent type:
Media type:
Carrier type:
ISBN:
  • 9780812246605
  • 9780812290370
Subject(s): DDC classification:
  • 342.7308/2
Other classification:
  • online - DeGruyter
Online resources: Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also in print.
Contents:
Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Chapter 1. Introduction -- Chapter 2. Creating a Dataset -- Chapter 3. A Cognitive Approach to IJ Decision Making -- Chapter 4. Local Conditions and IJ Decision Making -- Chapter 5. Appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals -- Chapter 6. Th e Policy Gap and Asylum Outcomes -- Chapter 7. IJs and Reform of the U.S. Asylum System -- Notes -- References -- Index -- Acknowledgments
Summary: Although there are legal norms to secure the uniform treatment of asylum claims in the United States, anecdotal and empirical evidence suggest that strategic and economic interests also influence asylum outcomes. Previous research has demonstrated considerable variation in how immigration judges decide seemingly similar cases, which implies a host of legal concerns-not the least of which is whether judicial bias is more determinative of the decision to admit those fleeing persecution to the United States than is the merit of the claim. These disparities also raise important policy considerations about how to fix what many perceive to be a broken adjudication system.With theoretical sophistication and empirical rigor, Immigration Judges and U.S. Asylum Policy investigates more than 500,000 asylum cases that were decided by U.S. immigration judges between 1990 and 2010. The authors find that judges treat certain facts about an asylum applicant more objectively than others: facts determined to be legally relevant tend to be treated similarly by judges of different political ideologies, while facts considered extralegal are treated subjectively. Furthermore, the authors examine how local economic and political conditions as well as congressional reforms have affected outcomes in asylum cases, concluding with a series of policy recommendations aimed at improving the quality of immigration law decision making rather than trying to reduce disparities between decision makers.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number URL Status Notes Barcode
eBook eBook Biblioteca "Angelicum" Pont. Univ. S.Tommaso d'Aquino Nuvola online online - DeGruyter (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Online access Not for loan (Accesso limitato) Accesso per gli utenti autorizzati / Access for authorized users (dgr)9780812290370

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Chapter 1. Introduction -- Chapter 2. Creating a Dataset -- Chapter 3. A Cognitive Approach to IJ Decision Making -- Chapter 4. Local Conditions and IJ Decision Making -- Chapter 5. Appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals -- Chapter 6. Th e Policy Gap and Asylum Outcomes -- Chapter 7. IJs and Reform of the U.S. Asylum System -- Notes -- References -- Index -- Acknowledgments

restricted access online access with authorization star

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec

Although there are legal norms to secure the uniform treatment of asylum claims in the United States, anecdotal and empirical evidence suggest that strategic and economic interests also influence asylum outcomes. Previous research has demonstrated considerable variation in how immigration judges decide seemingly similar cases, which implies a host of legal concerns-not the least of which is whether judicial bias is more determinative of the decision to admit those fleeing persecution to the United States than is the merit of the claim. These disparities also raise important policy considerations about how to fix what many perceive to be a broken adjudication system.With theoretical sophistication and empirical rigor, Immigration Judges and U.S. Asylum Policy investigates more than 500,000 asylum cases that were decided by U.S. immigration judges between 1990 and 2010. The authors find that judges treat certain facts about an asylum applicant more objectively than others: facts determined to be legally relevant tend to be treated similarly by judges of different political ideologies, while facts considered extralegal are treated subjectively. Furthermore, the authors examine how local economic and political conditions as well as congressional reforms have affected outcomes in asylum cases, concluding with a series of policy recommendations aimed at improving the quality of immigration law decision making rather than trying to reduce disparities between decision makers.

Issued also in print.

Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.

In English.

Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 30. Aug 2021)