This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-940 
entitled 'U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in Asylum 
Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges' which was released on 
September 26, 2008. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

September 2008: 

U.S. Asylum System: 

Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes across Immigration 
Courts and Judges: 

U.S. Asylum System: 

GAO-08-940: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-940, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Each year, tens of thousands of people who have been persecuted or fear 
persecution in their home countries apply for asylum in the United 
States. Immigration judges (IJ) from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) decide whether to grant 
or deny asylum to aliens in removal proceedings. Those denied asylum 
may appeal their case to EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). GAO 
was asked to assess the variability of IJ rulings, and the effects of 
policy changes related to appeals and claims. This report addresses: 
(1) factors affecting variability in asylum outcomes; (2) EOIR actions 
to assist applicants and IJs; (3) effects associated with procedural 
changes at the BIA; and (4) effects of the requirement that asylum 
seekers apply within 1 year of entering the country. GAO analyzed DOJ 
asylum data for fiscal years 1995 through mid-2007, visited 5 
immigration courts in 3 cities, including those with 3 of the top 4 
asylum caseloads; observed asylum hearings; and interviewed key 
officials. Results of the visits provided additional information but 
were not projectable. 

What GAO Found: 

In the 19 immigration courts that handled almost 90 percent of asylum 
cases from October 1994 through April 2007, nine factors affected 
variability in asylum outcomes: (1) filed affirmatively (originally 
with DHS at his/her own initiative) or defensively (with DOJ, if in 
removal proceedings); (2) applicant’s nationality; (3) time period of 
the asylum decision; (4) representation; (5) applied within 1 year of 
entry to the United States; (6) claimed dependents on the application; 
(7) had ever been detained (defensive cases only); (8) gender of the 
immigration judge and (9) length of experience as an immigration judge. 
After statistically controlling for these factors, disparities across 
immigration courts and judges existed. For example, affirmative 
applicants in San Francisco were still 12 times more likely than those 
in Atlanta to be granted asylum. Further, in 14 of 19 immigration 
courts for affirmative cases, and 13 of 19 for defensive cases, 
applicants were at least 4 times more likely to be granted asylum if 
their cases were decided by the judge with the highest versus the 
lowest likelihood of granting asylum in that court. 

EOIR expanded its programs designed to assist applicants with obtaining 
representation and has attempted to improve the capabilities of some 
IJs. EOIR has conducted two grant rate studies and was using 
information on IJs with unusually high or low grant rates, together 
with other indicators of IJ performance, to identify IJs who might 
benefit from additional training and supervision. However, EOIR lacked 
the expertise to statistically control for factors that could affect 
asylum outcomes, and this limited the completeness, accuracy, and 
usefulness of grant rate information. Without such information, to be 
used in conjunction with other performance indicators, EOIR’s ability 
to identify IJs who may need additional training and supervision was 
hindered. EOIR assigned some IJ supervisors to field locations to 
improve oversight of immigration courts, but EOIR has not determined 
how many supervisors it needs to effectively supervise IJs and has not 
provided supervisors with guidance on how to carry out their 
supervisory role. 

Following streamlining (procedural changes) at the BIA in March 2002, 
BIA’s appeals backlog decreased, as did the number of decisions 
favoring asylum seekers. Such decisions were more than 50 percent lower 
in the 4 years after streamlining compared to 4 years prior. The 
authority to affirm the IJ’s’ decisions without writing an opinion was 
used in 44 percent of BIA’s asylum decisions. In June 2008, EOIR 
proposed regulatory changes to the streamlining rules, but it is too 
soon to tell how they will affect appeals outcomes. 

Data limitations prevented GAO from determining the (1) effect of the 1-
year rule on fraudulent applications and denials and (2) resources 
adjudicators have spent addressing related issues. EOIR lacked measures 
of fraud, data on whether the 1-year rule was the basis for asylum 
denials, and records of time spent addressing such issues. Congress 
would need to direct EOIR to develop a cost-effective method of 
collecting data to determine the effect of the rule. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that EOIR use GAO’s findings and examine cost-effective 
options for obtaining statistical information on IJs’ asylum decisions 
to help it identify IJs with training and supervision needs; and assess 
resources and guidance needed to supervise IJs. DOJ and EOIR agreed 
with our recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-940]. For more 
information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8777 or 
stanar@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Various Factors Were Associated with Differences in the Likelihood of 
Being Granted Asylum in Immigration Courts: 

EOIR Has Taken Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges in 
the Asylum Process, but Some Actions to Identify Immigration Judges 
with Training Needs Were Limited, and the Resources and Guidance Needed 
to Ensure Effective Supervision Had Not Been Determined: 

BIA Streamlining Was Associated with a Reduction in BIA's Backlog and 
Fewer Outcomes Favorable to Asylum Seekers: 

Data Limitations Precluded Determining the Effects of the 1-Year Rule 
and the Resources Expended Adjudicating It: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Factors Affecting Variability in Asylum Outcomes in Immigration Court: 

EOIR Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges: 

Did the Asylum Backlog and Asylum Outcomes Change Following BIA 
Streamlining? 

Information on the 1-Year Rule: 

Appendix II: Differences in Asylum Grant Rates across Immigration 
Courts: 

Appendix III: Differences in Asylum Grant Rates across Immigration 
Judges: 

Logistic Regression Analyses of Grant and Denial Rates for Immigration 
Judges from the Same Immigration Courts Handling Asylum Cases from the 
Same Countries: 

Appendix IV: Prior Research on Factors Affecting Asylum Decisions: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Affirmative Grant Rate for Selected Nationalities in Two 
Geographically Proximal Immigration Courts: 

Table 2: Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum If Case Was Heard by the 
Immigration Judge Most Likely to Grant Asylum, Compared to the 
Immigration Judge Least Likely to Grant Asylum, by Immigration Court: 

Table 3: BIA Decisions Favoring Asylum Applicants, before and after 
March 2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms, by Claimant Characteristics: 

Table 4: BIA Asylum Decisions Favoring Alien Made by Three-Member 
Panels versus Single Members, Post 2002 Streamlining: 

Table 5: Asylum Cases Referred at Least in Part on the 1-Year Rule by 
DHS Asylum Officers to Immigration Judges, by Fiscal Year: 

Table 6: Variables Used in GAO Analyses of Factors Affecting Asylum 
Outcomes: 

Table 7: Coding Scheme for BIA Decision Outcomes: 

Table 8: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied: 

Table 9: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied, by Immigration Court: 

Table 10: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied, by Country: 

Table 11: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied, by Various Claimant Characteristics: 

Table 12: Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Cases Granted and 
Denied, by Country and Immigration Court, for Immigration Courts 
Deciding 50 or More Cases from the Different Countries: 

Table 13: Results of Modeling Affirmative Cases with Absentia Excluded: 

Table 14: Results of Modeling Defensive Cases with Absentia Excluded: 

Table 15: Odds Ratios and Significance Levels of Differences across 
Immigration Courts, for Affirmative Asylum Cases: 

Table 16: Odds Ratios and Significance Levels of Differences Across 
Immigration Courts, for Defensive Asylum Cases: 

Table 17: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Affirmative Cases in Their Primary Immigration Court: 

Table 18: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Defensive Cases in Their Primary Immigration Court: 

Table 19: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Affirmative Cases in their Primary Immigration Court, by 
Immigration Judge Characteristics: 

Table 20: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Defensive Cases in their Primary Immigration Court, by 
Immigration Judge Characteristics: 

Table 21: Summary of Analyses of Asylum Seekers in Specific 
Combinations of Immigration Courts and Countries: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Proceedings Process: 

Figure 2: Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases, by 
Immigration Court: 

Figure 3: Percentage of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases Granted, 
by Nationality: 

Figure 4: Asylum Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Applicants, 
by Fiscal Year of Immigration Judge Decision: 

Figure 5: Immigration Judge Asylum Grant Rates, Affirmative Cases, by 
Immigration Court: 

Figure 6: Overall BIA Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of 
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year: 

Figure 7: BIA Asylum Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of 
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year: 

Figure 8: Number of BIA Asylum Decisions and Average Time from Filing 
of Appeal to Decision, by Fiscal Year of BIA Decision: 

Figure 9: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, before and after the March 
2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms: 

Figure 10: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, by Fiscal Year of BIA 
Decision: 

Figure 11: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating Immigration 
Court Differences, with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals, for 
Affirmative Cases: 

Figure 12: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating Immigration 
Court Differences, with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals, for Defensive 
Cases: 

Figure 13: Immigration Judge Asylum Grant Rates, Defensive Cases, by 
Immigration Court: 

Abbreviations: 

ACIJ: Assistant Chief Immigration Judge: 

ANSIR: Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review: 

AWO: affirmance without opinion: 

BIA: Board of Immigration Appeals: 

CAT: United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman 
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: 

CPDF: Central Personnel Data File: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

EOIR: Executive Office for Immigration Review: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

IJ: immigration judge: 

LOP: Legal Orientation Program: 

NAIJ: National Association of Immigration Judges: 

NJC: National Judicial College: 

OIL: Office of Immigration Litigation: 

USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

September 25, 2008: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman: Chairman: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: United States 
Senate: 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy: Chairman: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees: Committee 
on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.: 
Chairman: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

Globally, the total number of refugees reached an estimated 11.4 
million people at the end of 2007, of whom tens of thousands from over 
100 countries came to the United States to apply for asylum. U.S. 
immigration law provides that non-citizens who are in this country-- 
regardless of whether they entered legally or illegally--may be granted 
humanitarian protection in the form of asylum if they demonstrate that 
they cannot return to their home country because they have a well- 
founded fear of persecution.[Footnote 1] 

Those who seek to apply for asylum generally go through an affirmative 
or defensive asylum process. Affirmative applications are voluntarily 
initiated by the applicants themselves, and their cases are reviewed by 
an asylum officer from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
Affirmative applicants generally receive either a grant, a notice of 
intent to deny, or, if they do not have lawful immigration status, a 
referral to immigration court for removal proceedings and a second 
review of their claim. Defensive applications are filed by applicants 
against whom removal proceedings have been initiated, and their cases 
are presented to an immigration judge from the Department of Justice's 
(DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The accuracy of 
an asylum decision is critical because of the decision's potential 
impact on the safety of the asylum seeker and the security of our 
nation.[Footnote 2] An incorrect denial may result in an applicant 
being returned to a country where he or she had been persecuted or 
where future persecution might occur. At the other extreme, an 
incorrect approval of an asylum application may allow a terrorist to 
remain in the United States, a concern that was heightened by the 
attacks of September 11, 2001. 

Given the potential consequences of asylum decisions, it is important 
to ensure that the asylum system is not misused and that asylum 
decisions are being made consistently and fairly. Among other things, 
the REAL ID Act of 2005 was a legislative effort to provide consistent 
standards for adjudicating asylum applications and to limit 
fraud.[Footnote 3] Several recently published reports have documented 
the existence of wide disparities in asylum decisions within and across 
particular asylum offices and immigration courts for cases brought by 
applicants from the same nationalities and during the same general time 
periods.[Footnote 4] These reports have raised concerns that 
adjudicators may not be evaluating asylum claims in a consistent or 
fair manner. 

Concerns have also been raised by Congress and immigration advocates 
about the effects of various policy changes intended to expedite asylum 
appeals and reduce fraudulent asylum claims. In 2002, DOJ attempted to 
address a large backlog of asylum appeals at EOIR's Board of 
Immigration Appeals (BIA) by streamlining certain appeals procedures 
with the goal of improving timeliness and efficiency. This has prompted 
questions about whether streamlined procedures have affected the 
ability of applicants appealing immigration judges' decisions to get a 
fair hearing and to obtain a well-reasoned opinion from the 
BIA.[Footnote 5] Further, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 included a provision requiring asylum 
seekers to apply within the first year of entering the 
country.[Footnote 6] While the 1 year requirement was intended to 
discourage asylum fraud, Congress and other stakeholders have raised 
questions about whether the resources expended on adjudicating the rule 
outweigh its effectiveness in deterring fraud, and about the numbers of 
people who were persecuted or tortured who may be denied the benefits 
of asylum because of the rule.[Footnote 7] In response to your interest 
in these issues, this report addresses the following objectives: 

* What factors have affected variability in asylum outcomes in EOIR's 
immigration courts? 

* What actions has EOIR taken to assist applicants in obtaining 
representation and immigration judges in rendering asylum decisions, 
and how, if at all, could they be improved? 

* What changes in asylum backlogs and outcomes occurred following the 
streamlining of appeals procedures at the BIA? 

* What information exists on the effects of the 1-year rule on reducing 
fraudulent asylum applications and preventing applicants from being 
granted asylum, and what resources have been expended in adjudicating 
it? 

To address the first objective, we analyzed data from EOIR on all 
decisions rendered by immigration judges from October 1, 1994, through 
April 30, 2007, that involved asylum seekers from the 20 countries that 
produced the most asylum cases and the 19 immigration courts that 
handled the largest numbers of asylum cases. Each of the 20 countries 
and 19 immigration courts contributed a minimum of 800 affirmative and 
800 defensive asylum cases to our analyses. The combination of 
countries and immigration courts yielded more than 198,000 cases for 
our analyses and constituted 66 percent of all asylum cases decided 
during the 12 ½ year period. We used EOIR's case management database to 
identify immigration court proceedings where an immigration judge had 
made a decision to grant or deny an applicant's asylum claim. We 
statistically controlled for the effects of a number of asylum 
applicant and immigration judge characteristics that were potentially 
related to asylum outcomes in order to determine whether the likelihood 
that an immigration judge would grant or deny an asylum application 
could be statistically attributed to those characteristics. In 
examining potential differences in asylum outcomes across immigration 
courts, we analyzed the following seven factors available in the EOIR 
immigration court proceedings data: (1) filed affirmatively or 
defensively; (2) the nationality of the applicant; (3) the time period 
in which the asylum decision was made; (4) whether the applicant had 
representation; (5) filed the application within 1 year of entry to the 
United States; (6) claimed dependents on the asylum application; and 
(7) had ever been detained (defensive cases only). In examining 
potential differences in asylum decisions across immigration judges, we 
analyzed an additional nine factors available from EOIR immigration 
court proceedings and biographical data, and the Office of Personnel 
Management's Central Personnel Data File. These included immigration 
judges' (1) age, (2) caseload size, (3) gender, (4) length of 
experience as an immigration judge, (5) race/ethnicity, (6) veteran 
status, (7) prior government immigration experience, (8) prior 
experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization, and (9) 
the presidential administration under which the judges were 
appointed.[Footnote 8] Our analyses did not control for factors related 
to the merits of asylum claims because such data were not available. 
Further, our findings on asylum outcomes cannot be generalized beyond 
the 20 countries and 19 immigration courts included in our analysis. We 
assessed the reliability of the data used in our analyses through 
electronic testing, analyzing related database documentation, and 
working with agency officials to reconcile discrepancies between the 
data and documentation that we received. We found the data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We also interviewed officials from EOIR's Office of the Chief 
Immigration Judge and visited five immigration courts in three cities 
containing three of the four immigration courts with the highest asylum 
caseloads. At these immigration courts, we interviewed immigration 
judges with varying asylum grant rates, court administrators, DHS trial 
attorneys with varying levels of experience handling cases in the 
immigration courts, members of the private bar who represented asylum 
applicants in immigration court, and immigration advocates and pro bono 
legal providers. We also observed proceedings at each immigration 
court, including hearings on asylum cases, to enhance our understanding 
of the role of immigration judges. Because we selected nonprobability 
samples of immigration courts and stakeholders associated with these 
immigration courts, the information we obtained at these locations may 
not be generalized either within the immigration courts or to all 
immigration courts nationwide. However, the information we obtained at 
these locations provided us with a perspective on circumstances 
associated with asylum proceedings. 

For the second objective, we reviewed the Attorney General's 2006 
reforms directed to the immigration courts and information from EOIR 
regarding its implementation of the reforms. Regarding initiatives 
designed to assist applicants, we reviewed agency guidance on 
facilitating pro bono programs and evaluation reports on EOIR's Legal 
Orientation and BIA's pro bono programs. We also interviewed the EOIR 
official responsible for coordinating these programs. Regarding actions 
to assist immigration judges in adjudicating asylum cases, we reviewed 
agency guidance regarding processing asylum cases and preparing 
decisions and orders, training materials for immigration judges, and 
the legal examination administered to new immigration judges. We also 
interviewed EOIR's Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJ) for 
Conduct and Professionalism and for Training, and cognizant officials 
knowledgeable about EOIR's studies of immigration judge grant rates. 

For the third objective, regarding changes in the asylum backlog and 
asylum outcomes following the streamlining of adjudication procedures 
at the BIA, we obtained and analyzed data from EOIR on the size of the 
pending asylum appeals caseload at the BIA for fiscal years 1995 
through 2007, and the results of the BIA's decisions on appeals from 
immigration judge decisions for the period from October 1, 1997, 
through September 30, 2006. We assessed the reliability of the data 
used in our analyses by performing electronic testing, analyzing 
related database documentation, and working with agency officials to 
reconcile any discrepancies in the data and found the data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We did not use 
EOIR data on the number of board members at the BIA who were involved 
in deciding asylum appeals prior to fiscal year 2004 because of 
concerns regarding the reliability of the field in those years. We also 
interviewed federal circuit court judges in the two circuits handling 
the largest number of petitions for review of BIA decisions (the 2nd 
and 9th Circuits), and officials in DOJ's Office of Immigration 
Litigation (OIL) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern 
District of New York who defend the Department of Justice in appeals of 
BIA decisions to the federal courts. 

Regarding the fourth objective, we reviewed the applicable law and 
regulations and discussed their impact on agency resources and 
applicants with the same immigration judges, attorneys, and members of 
advocacy groups whom we had selected to interview regarding our first 
objective. We also added questions about immigration judges' views of 
the 1-year rule to a Web-based survey of immigration judges that was 
being conducted as part of another GAO review, and obtained a 77 
percent response rate. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through 
September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
Appendix I contains more details about our data analysis, survey, and 
site visit methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

The likelihood of being granted asylum varied considerably across 
immigration courts and judges, and nine factors, out of a total of 16 
factors analyzed, had statistically significant effects on the 
variability of asylum outcomes.[Footnote 9] Across the 19 large 
immigration courts in our review, seven factors significantly affected 
outcomes during the period October 1994 through April 2007: (1) filed 
affirmatively or defensively;[Footnote 10] (2) applicant's nationality; 
(3) the time period in which the asylum decision was made; and whether 
the applicant (4) had representation, (5) filed the application within 
1 year of entry to the United States, (6) claimed dependents on the 
asylum application, and (7) had ever been detained (defensive cases 
only).[Footnote 11] Across immigration judges within these immigration 
courts, these same seven factors, plus the following additional two 
factors, had statistically significant effects on variability in asylum 
outcomes: (1) the gender of the immigration judge and (2) the length of 
experience as an immigration judge. We did not determine the extent to 
which the underlying facts or merits of the case affected differences 
in asylum outcomes, as EOIR did not have data on such factors. As an 
example of differences in asylum outcomes across immigration courts, 
affirmative applicants in the San Francisco immigration court were 12 
times more likely to be granted asylum than affirmative applicants in 
the Atlanta immigration court, even after we controlled for the 
statistically significant effects of applicants' nationality, time 
period of the decision, representation, filing within 1 year of entry, 
and claiming dependents. The likelihood of being granted asylum 
increased significantly for both affirmative and defensive applicants 
who had representation, applied for asylum since fiscal year 2001, 
filed the application within 1 year of entry, and claimed dependents on 
the asylum application. Representation generally doubled the likelihood 
that immigration judges would grant asylum to affirmative and defensive 
asylum applicants compared to those without representation, after 
statistical controls were applied. In contrast, defensive applicants 
who had ever been detained were about two-thirds as likely to be 
granted asylum as those who had not been detained, after statistical 
controls were applied. In the New York City immigration court--which 
handles the largest number of asylum cases in the country--the 
likelihood of an affirmative applicant being granted asylum was 420 
times greater if the applicant's case was decided by the immigration 
judge who had the highest likelihood of granting asylum than if the 
applicant's case was decided by the immigration judge who had the 
lowest likelihood in that immigration court. In 14 out of 19 
immigration courts for affirmative cases, and 13 of 19 immigration 
courts for defensive cases, applicants were at least 4 times as likely 
to be granted asylum if their cases were decided by the immigration 
judge with the highest versus the lowest likelihood of granting in that 
immigration court. We found that male immigration judges were 60 
percent as likely as female immigration judges to grant asylum. In 
contrast, immigration judge characteristics such as age, race/ 
ethnicity, veteran status, prior government immigration experience, 
prior experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization, 
caseload size, and the presidential administration under which they 
were appointed were not statistically significantly associated with the 
likelihood of being granted asylum. 

EOIR has taken a number of actions to improve its assistance to aliens 
in obtaining legal representation, such as expanding programs to help 
them access counsel, and EOIR has also sought to identify and improve 
the skills of immigration judges needing additional training or 
supervision; however, EOIR's actions in identifying and supervising 
immigration judges who may benefit from supplemental efforts to improve 
their performance could be improved. In 2006, partially in response to 
a directive from the Attorney General that EOIR identify judges in need 
of additional training or supervision, EOIR conducted a review of 
immigration judges' rates of granting asylum. EOIR updated its review 
in 2008. However, EOIR's grant rate studies did not take into account 
available data on the characteristics of asylum seekers (such as 
nationality and representation) and immigration judges (such as gender 
and length of experience) that could be statistically related to 
immigration judges' decisions to grant or deny asylum. The relationship 
between these characteristics (factors) and variability in asylum 
decisions by immigration judges across and within immigration courts 
can be determined using a multivariate statistical analysis. While 
generally accepted statistical practices include the use of 
multivariate analyses to statistically control for various factors that 
may affect outcomes when data on such factors are available, EOIR's 
studies did not statistically control for such factors, in part, 
because as EOIR acknowledges, it does not have a trained statistician 
on staff who could analyze its data using such sophisticated 
statistical controls. Furthermore, EOIR officials stated that they did 
not have the funding available to contract for such expertise. While we 
recognize that EOIR lacks the expertise to statistically control for 
such factors, without doing so, the completeness, accuracy and 
usefulness of the information obtained from its grant rate reviews will 
be limited, and EOIR will be hindered in its efforts to identify 
immigration judges whose that require additional training and 
supervision. 

EOIR said it was using information on which immigration judges had 
unusually high or low asylum grant rates, in conjunction with other 
indicators of performance, such as high reversal rate for legal error, 
to identify immigration judges in need of greater supervision. EOIR 
also said it was improving training for all immigration judges and 
developing a directory listing immigration judges' areas of expertise 
so judges could share best practices. Further, according to EOIR, from 
September 2006 through May 2008, 14 immigration judges were referred 
for additional or ameliorative training, of whom 6 were referred for 
additional legal training. EOIR said that it relied on immigration 
judges' supervisors, the Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJs), to 
identify immigration judges who could benefit from mentoring, training, 
and observing their peers adjudicating cases. However, as of August 
2008, EOIR had six ACIJs in field locations who, in addition to 
handling their own caseload of immigration cases, supervised 148 
immigration judges in 32 different immigration courts. EOIR had four 
ACIJs in EOIR headquarters who, in addition to handling administrative 
matters, supervised 68 immigration judges in 22 different immigration 
courts. EOIR did not provide these supervisors explicit guidance on how 
they should carry out their supervisory responsibilities--for example, 
on how they are to use information on immigration judges' asylum grant 
rates in combination with other performance information they may 
collect to improve immigration judges' performance. Internal control 
standards require federal agencies to design controls to assure that 
continuous supervision occurs to help ensure the effective management 
of the workforce. However, EOIR has not determined how many ACIJs it 
needs to effectively supervise immigration judges, and it has not 
provided ACIJs with guidance on how to carry out their supervisory 
role. Doing so would put EOIR in a better position to monitor 
immigration judges' performance and take appropriate action to correct 
or prevent immigration judges' performance issues that may arise. 

Following BIA's March 2002 streamlining procedures, BIA's backlog of 
asylum appeals decreased, as did the number of BIA decisions favoring 
the alien. BIA's backlog of asylum appeals began to decrease in the 
fiscal year that the streamlining began and reached its lowest level in 
13 years in fiscal year 2007, at about 18,700 pending appeals. In 
addition, BIA decisions favoring the alien were almost 50 percent lower 
(declining from 21 percent to 10 percent) in the 4 ½ years following 
the 2002 streamlining compared with the 4 ½ years preceding it. 
Further, the percentage of BIA decisions in which asylum applicants 
were allowed to depart the United States voluntarily at their own 
expense (voluntary departure) rather than being removed by immigration 
enforcement personnel decreased from 25 percent to 17 percent, while 
the percentage of BIA decisions sustaining an appeal of an asylum grant 
by DHS or dismissing an applicant's appeal of an asylum denial remained 
the same at about 27 percent. At the same time, following the 2002 
streamlining, BIA Board members used their new authority to affirm the 
immigration judge's asylum decision without writing an opinion in 44 
percent of the asylum cases reviewed between March 14, 2002, and 
October 1, 2006, with 77 percent of these cases resulting in removal 
orders against the asylum applicant. The decrease in the percentage of 
BIA asylum decisions favoring the alien following the March 2002 
streamlining occurred in both affirmative and defensive cases, and the 
decreases were significantly greater for those who applied defensively. 
Further, defensive asylum applicants who did not have representation 
experienced greater decreases in favorable asylum outcomes at the BIA 
than those with representation, and defensive applicants who were not 
detained experienced greater decreases in favorable outcomes than those 
who were detained. When BIA appeals were decided by a three-member 
panel, 52 percent of the decisions during fiscal years 2004 through 
2006 favored the alien; when BIA appeals were decided by a single BIA 
member, 7 percent of the decisions favored the alien. 

Data limitations prevented us from determining the effectiveness of the 
1-year rule in reducing fraudulent applications and preventing 
applicants from being granted asylum, as well as the amount of 
resources that asylum officers, immigration judges, and DHS attorneys 
have spent addressing issues related to the rule. We could not 
determine the effectiveness of the 1-year rule in reducing fraudulent 
applications primarily because measures of deterring fraudulent 
behavior and reliable data on the presence of fraud are not available. 
We could not determine the number of asylum applications denied solely 
because of the 1-year rule because EOIR data do not identify how many 
of the asylum cases decided by immigration judges involved 1-year rule 
adjudications. According to agency officials, EOIR's mission of fair 
and prompt adjudication of immigration proceedings has not required its 
staff to track data on the legal basis for the decision. Agency 
officials stated that changes in its administrative processing and data 
tracking systems in order to gather prospective data on the impact of 
the 1-year rule would involve some cost to the agency, with the risk 
that such data may not provide definitive results, since in many cases 
the immigration judge's ruling may have multiple legal bases. DHS 
maintains data on cases referred to immigration court because of the 1- 
year rule, but data were not available to determine if the case could 
also have been referred for other reasons. Without such data, we cannot 
determine the number of asylum applications denied solely because of 
the 1-year rule. We could not determine the amount of resources spent 
adjudicating the 1-year rule because DHS and DOJ do not maintain 
records on how much time asylum officers, immigration judges, and DHS 
attorneys spend addressing issues related to the 1-year rule. 

To help EOIR develop more complete, accurate, and useful information on 
immigration judges whose asylum decisions are highly discrepant from 
those of their peers and to facilitate EOIR's goal of identifying 
immigration judges who may benefit from supplemental performance 
improvement and supervision efforts, we are making three 
recommendations. We are recommending that EOIR use the information we 
generated in our analyses, which statistically controlled for a number 
of claimant and immigration judge characteristics that could have 
affected asylum outcomes, to help identify immigration judges who may 
benefit from additional assistance such as supervision and training. We 
are also recommending that EOIR explore options for acquiring the 
statistical expertise needed to perform periodic multivariate analyses 
of asylum decisions. Finally, we are recommending that EOIR develop a 
plan for supervisory immigration judges, to include an assessment of 
the resources and guidance needed to ensure that immigration judges 
receive effective supervision. 

DOJ and EOIR agreed with our recommendations. 

Background: 

Asylum is a form of humanitarian protection that provides refuge for 
individuals who are unable or unwilling to return to their home 
countries because they were persecuted or have a well-founded fear of 
persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in 
a particular social group, or political opinion.[Footnote 12] It is an 
immigration benefit that enables such individuals to remain in the 
United States and apply for lawful permanent residence 1 year after 
receiving the grant of asylum. Responsibility for adjudicating asylum 
applications is shared between U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) in DHS and EOIR in DOJ. Asylum officers in 8 USCIS Asylum 
Offices and immigration judges in 54 immigration courts within EOIR's 
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge adjudicate asylum and other 
cases. In fiscal year 2008, the Asylum Division received about $61 
million from USCIS fee-based funding and EOIR received about $238 
million from congressional appropriations for its entire operation, of 
which asylum adjudications are part.[Footnote 13] 

There are two main avenues for applying for asylum in the United 
States: 

Affirmative asylum process: DHS's asylum adjudication process involves 
affirmative asylum claims--that is, claims that are made at the 
initiative of aliens who are in the country either legally or illegally 
and who file directly with USCIS. Asylum officers are to conduct non- 
adversarial interviews in which they verify the applicant's identity, 
determine whether the applicant is eligible for asylum, and evaluate 
the credibility of the applicant's asylum claim. The asylum officer may 
(1) grant asylum, (2) deny asylum to applicants who are in legal status 
and issue a Notice of Intent to Deny, or (3) refer applicants not in 
legal status to the immigration court for a de novo review of their 
claim by an immigration judge.[Footnote 14] Upon referral to the 
immigration court, the applicant is placed in removal proceedings. 

Defensive asylum process: Defensive claims are those that are first 
filed after removal proceedings have been initiated against an alien. 
An alien making a defensive claim may have been placed in removal 
proceedings after having been stopped at the border without proper 
documentation, identified as being in the United States illegally, or 
identified as deportable on one or more grounds, such as certain kinds 
of criminal convictions. 

Immigration judges hear affirmative asylum claims referred to them by 
asylum officers, as well as defensive claims first raised before them. 
Adjudication of asylum claims in immigration court is adversarial in 
that aliens appear before EOIR immigration judges to defend themselves 
from removal from the United States. Immigration judges hear testimony 
given during direct and cross-examinations and review the evidence 
submitted. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Chief 
Counsels (also known as ICE trial attorneys) represent DHS in these 
proceedings. Figure 1 illustrates the steps involved in the immigration 
proceedings process for affirmative and defensive claims. 

Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Proceedings Process: 

This figure is a chart showing the steps of the immigration proceedings 
process. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS and EQIR data. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 1, EOIR's asylum process generally consists of the 
following steps. The applicant is to appear before an immigration judge 
for an initial, or master calendar, hearing, during which the 
immigration judge is to, among other things, (a) ensure that the 
applicant understands the contents of the charging document, or Notice 
to Appear, (b) provide the applicant with information on available free 
of charge or low-cost legal representation in the area, and (c) 
schedule a subsequent date to hear the merits of the asylum claim and 
requests for other alternative forms of relief from persecution or 
torture, including withholding of removal and protection under the 
Convention Against Torture (CAT).[Footnote 15] Prior to the merits 
hearing, both the ICE trial attorney and the applicant or his or her 
representative must submit applications, exhibits, motions, a witness 
list, and criminal history to the immigration court. At the merits 
hearing, where EOIR is to provide interpreters when necessary, parties 
present the case before the immigration judge by generally making 
opening statements, presenting witnesses who are subject to cross 
examination and evidence to the immigration judge, and making closing 
statements. The immigration judge may participate in the questioning of 
the applicant and other witnesses. At the end of the hearing, the 
immigration judge generally issues an oral decision that should include 
a statement of facts that were found to be true, the substantive law 
and the application of the law to the facts, what factors were 
considered, and what weight was given to the evidence presented 
(including the credibility of witnesses). 

EOIR's asylum adjudication process can result in one of the following 
outcomes for applicants and their qualifying dependents: 

Grant of asylum: Immigration judges may grant asylum to applicants, 
enabling them to remain in the United States indefinitely, unless DOJ 
terminates asylum. Asylees are eligible to apply for certain benefits, 
such as an Employment Authorization Document, a Social Security card, 
medical and employment assistance, lawful permanent residence, and 
ultimately citizenship. Within 2 years of being granted asylum, asylees 
can also petition for a spouse or child to obtain derivative asylum 
status. 

Denial of asylum: Immigration judges may deny asylum to applicants and 
order them to be removed from the United States unless they qualify for 
another form of relief, s such as withholding or deferral of removal. 
However, these other forms of relief do not include all of the benefits 
of asylum, such as the ability to apply for permanent resident status 
and bring family members to the United States. In some cases, in lieu 
of an order of removal, immigration judges may grant voluntary 
departure.[Footnote 16] 

Case closure: Immigration judges may close a case without making a 
decision on the asylum application if, for example, applicants request 
moving their case from one immigration court to another or withdraw or 
abandon their application for asylum . 

If either the applicant or ICE disagrees with the immigration judge's 
decision, either party may appeal the decision to the BIA within 30 
days. The BIA is the highest administrative adjudicatory body for 
immigration decisions within DOJ, and its members hear appeals of 
decisions rendered by immigration judges and by DHS District Directors 
in a wide variety of proceedings.[Footnote 17] If the BIA's decision is 
adverse to the applicant, he or she may, within 30 days of the 
decision, file a petition for review of the decision in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals with jurisdiction over the immigration court in which the 
decision was made.[Footnote 18] 

EOIR's Asylum Caseload and Staffing: 

EOIR's immigration courts received 1.9 million new cases during fiscal 
years 2002 through 2007, of which 19 percent were asylum 
cases.[Footnote 19] The number of authorized immigration judges 
increased from 216 in fiscal year 2002, to 251 in fiscal year 
2007.[Footnote 20] During fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the BIA 
received 217,162 appeals of immigration judge decisions, of which 64 
percent were appeals by applicants or by DHS in cases where an asylum 
application had been filed with the immigration court. 

Hiring of Immigration Judges: 

Immigration judges are attorneys appointed under Schedule A of the 
excepted service who are managed by EOIR.[Footnote 21] According to 
EOIR, three processes have been used to hire immigration judges: (1) 
The Attorney General directly appointed the immigration judge, or 
directed the appointment without a recommendation by EOIR;[Footnote 22] 
(2) the immigration judge was appointed after directly responding to an 
announcement for an immigration judge position and submitting the 
appropriate documentation; or (3) EOIR identified a need and vacancies 
were filled from EOIR personnel or sitting immigration judges who 
requested and obtained transfers. Except for direct appointment by the 
Attorney General, to be considered for the position of immigration 
judge, an applicant must meet certain minimal qualifications, and DOJ 
considers a range of other selection factors in making a hiring 
decision.[Footnote 23] 

According to EOIR, from October 1993 through October 2007, three 
sitting Attorneys General directly appointed 26 immigration judges--19 
were directly appointed by Alberto Gonzales, 4 by John Ashcroft, and 3 
by Janet Reno. These three Attorneys General also appointed 181 
immigration judges pursuant to an open announcement in which applicants 
competed for a vacant immigration judge position. An additional eight 
EOIR personnel who were not originally hired as immigration judges were 
identified by EOIR to fill immigration judge vacancies on EOIR's 
recommendation. 

Immigration Judge Training: 

According to EOIR, since 1997, training for newly hired immigration 
judges has included attendance at a weeklong basic training session at 
the National Judicial College (NJC). The NJC training has included 
courses on immigration court procedure, immigration law, ethics, 
caseload management, and stress management. The training is delivered 
in a workshop format, and incorporates lecture instruction, small group 
exercises, and immigration court hearing demonstrations. In addition to 
this training, immigration judges complete 2 weeks of observations in 
their home immigration court and 2 weeks of observations and holding 
hearings in a training immigration court. According to EOIR, new 
immigration judges are also assigned mentors in both their home and 
observation immigration courts to guide their learning during the 
training. They are to remain their mentors throughout the probationary 
period. As of December 31, 2006, all newly appointed immigration judges 
have been required to pass an examination testing familiarity with key 
principles of immigration law and complete a set of mock-hearing and 
oral decision exercises before beginning to adjudicate matters. 

For both new and veteran immigration judges, EOIR has convened an 
annual training conference, which includes lectures and presentations 
covering topics such as immigration law and procedure, ethics, 
religious freedom, disparities in asylum adjudications, and forensic 
analysis. Because of budget constraints, a virtual conference that 
included recorded presentations was offered in place of the in-person 
conference in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2008. 

Additionally, according to EOIR, immigration judges have access to a 
variety of reference tools such as the Immigration Judge Benchbook, 
which includes information on substantive law, sample decisions, and 
forms; and EOIR's virtual law library, which has current publications 
and reference documents on immigration law, immigration procedure, 
international law, and country conditions and provides case summaries 
distributed electronically on a weekly basis. In October 2007, EOIR 
launched the Immigration Law Advisor that provides a monthly analysis 
of statutory, regulatory, and case law developments. 

Free Legal Services Available to Aliens in Removal Proceedings: 

Under U.S. immigration law, aliens in removal proceedings may be 
represented by an attorney at no expense to the government.[Footnote 
24] Aliens must either find and pay for counsel or secure free 
representation. Since April 2003, EOIR has administered the Legal 
Orientation Program (LOP), a court-based legal education program for 
detained non-citizens in immigration court proceedings. 

The LOP seeks to educate detained persons in removal proceedings so 
they can make more informed decisions, thus increasing efficiencies in 
the immigration court and detention processes. The program offers 
individual and group orientation sessions; self-help workshops, and 
referrals to pro bono attorneys. In fiscal year 2008, $3.8 million was 
authorized for the program, and LOP presentations were offered at 12 
sites. In May 2008, the Vera Institute of Justice reported that 
participation in the LOP was associated with faster immigration court 
processing times for aliens who were detained and more favorable case 
outcomes for aliens who represented themselves in removal 
hearings.[Footnote 25] 

EOIR's BIA Pro Bono Project assists several nongovernment organizations 
in their efforts to link volunteer legal representatives nationwide 
with aliens, most of whom are detained, who have immigration cases on 
appeal to the BIA and cannot afford legal representation. The project 
seeks to remove traditional obstacles private attorneys face in 
identifying, locating, and communicating with unrepresented aliens by 
providing EOIR case tracking and summary information to facilitate the 
initial contact. 

EOIR also maintains a list of organizations and attorneys deemed 
qualified to provide free legal services to indigent individuals. EOIR 
is required by regulation to update the list not less than quarterly 
and to provide the list to all aliens in immigration proceedings. 

BIA Procedures were Streamlined to Address an Increasing Backlog of 
Appeals: 

Historically, with a few exceptions, the BIA adjudicated its appeals in 
panels of three BIA members, which generally issued full written 
decisions explaining the order in each case. Because of an increasing 
number of appeals filed with the BIA and an increasing backlog of 
pending cases, DOJ began in 1999 to implement procedural changes at the 
BIA to better manage its docket. These regulatory changes, referred to 
as "streamlining" or "restructuring," occurred in phases. Changes 
starting in October 1999 and continuing through February 2002 
authorized single Board members to affirm an immigration judge's 
decision (in certain categories of cases other than asylum appeals) 
without writing an opinion (referred to as "affirmances without 
opinion," or AWO orders).[Footnote 26] On March 15, 2002, the Chairman 
of the BIA authorized cases involving appeals of asylum cases, 
withholding, and CAT applications to be decided by single members using 
affirmances without opinion (AWO). Until then, these matters had been 
handled by panels of three BIA members, and the panels had issued full 
written decisions explaining their reasoning. The Attorney General 
issued a final rule on August 26, 2002, that codified these changes in 
regulation and made other changes to BIA's structure and 
procedures.[Footnote 27] For all cases before the BIA, including asylum 
cases, the rule made single member decisions the default procedure. 

The rule gave greater deference to immigration judges' factual 
findings, changing the standard of BIA review from de novo to "clearly 
erroneous" for questions of fact, though not for questions of law or 
discretion; set deadlines for the completion of cases; and reduced the 
size of the BIA from its authorized 23 members to 11 members. According 
to DOJ, the incremental increases in the size of the BIA from 5 members 
in 1995 to 23 authorized members in 2002 had had no appreciable impact 
on the BIA's ability to decide appeals, the backlog had continued to 
increase, and the BIA had grown too large and unwieldy to reach 
consensus on individual cases and resolve complex legal questions 
effectively. 

According to DOJ, the regulation was intended, at least in part, to 
improve the timeliness and efficiency of BIA's review. Specifically, 
the Attorney General stressed four objectives: (1) eliminate the 
current backlog of pending cases, (2) eliminate unwarranted delays in 
the adjudication of administrative appeals, (3) utilize BIA resources 
more efficiently, and (4) allow more resources for difficult or 
controversial cases that may warrant the issuance of precedent 
decisions. 

Asylum Applicants Must File for Asylum within 1 Year of Entry: 

Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996 and its implementing regulations, individuals seeking asylum 
after April 1, 1998, are generally required to apply within the first 
year of entering the United States. Specifically, the applicant must 
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence during an interview with 
an asylum officer or during a removal proceeding in front of an 
immigration judge that the application has been filed within 1 year 
after the date of the applicant's last arrival in the country.[Footnote 
28] The time limit or "1-year rule" was intended to minimize fraudulent 
asylum applications and to encourage applicants who have illegally 
entered the country to present themselves without delay to the 
authorities. 

The statute allows exceptions to the 1-year rule to the extent the 
applicant demonstrates changed circumstances materially affecting 
eligibility or extraordinary circumstances relating to the filing 
delay. Changed circumstances generally include changes in conditions in 
the applicant's country of nationality, changes in the applicant's 
circumstances, including changes in applicable law or changes in 
dependency status. Extraordinary circumstances affecting the filing 
delay may include serious illness or mental or physical disability, 
including any effects of persecution or violent harm suffered in the 
past; legal disability, such as for those applicants who are 
unaccompanied minors; ineffective assistance of counsel; or death or 
serious illness or incapacity of the applicant's legal representative, 
among a nonexhaustive list specified in the regulations.[Footnote 29] 

Applicants who cannot demonstrate that their application was filed 
within 1 year after arrival in the United States and are not eligible 
for an exception to the bar, may be eligible for relief from 
persecution through withholding of removal because of persecution or 
withholding or protection under the Convention Against Torture. 
However, as discussed earlier, the standard of proof for withholding 
and CAT is higher than for asylum, and the benefits are more limited. 

Various Factors Were Associated with Differences in the Likelihood of 
Being Granted Asylum in Immigration Courts: 

The likelihood of being granted asylum varied considerably across and 
within the 19 large immigration courts included in our review.[Footnote 
30] Of 16 asylum applicant and immigration judge characteristics that 
we examined in a series of bivariate and multivariate statistical 
analyses, 9 factors had statistically significant effects on asylum 
applicants' likelihood of being granted asylum. Across immigration 
courts, seven factors significantly affected asylum outcomes: (1) 
whether the asylum application was first filed affirmatively with DHS's 
asylum office or defensively with DOJ/EOIR's immigration court; (2) the 
nationality of the applicant; (3) the time period in which the asylum 
decision was made; (4) whether the applicant had representation; (5) 
filed the application within 1 year of entry to the United States; (6) 
claimed dependents on the asylum application; and (7) had ever been 
detained (defensive cases only). Across immigration judges, in addition 
to these seven factors, two other factors significantly affected asylum 
outcomes: (1) the gender of the immigration judge and (2) the length of 
experience as an immigration judge.[Footnote 31] The seven factors that 
did not significantly affect applicants' likelihood of being granted 
asylum were the following characteristics of immigration judges: (1) 
age, (2) caseload size, (3) race/ethnicity, (4) veteran status, (5) 
prior government immigration experience, (6) prior experience doing 
immigration work for a nonprofit organization, and (7) the presidential 
administration under which the judges were appointed. 

Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Varied across Immigration Courts: 

Differences in Grant Rates Were Sizable across Immigration Courts: 

The likelihood of being granted asylum differed for affirmative and 
defensive cases and varied depending on the immigration court in which 
the case was heard. Overall, the grant rate for affirmative cases (37 
percent) was significantly higher than the grant rate for defensive 
cases (26 percent).[Footnote 32] The affirmative asylum grant rate 
ranged from 6 percent in Atlanta to 54 percent in New York City. The 
grant rate for defensive cases ranged from 7 percent in Atlanta to 35 
percent in San Francisco and New York City. (See fig. 2 and a detailed 
discussion of these differences in appendix II). 

Figure 2: Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases, by 
Immigration Court: 

This figure is a combination bar graph showing grant rates for 
affirmative and defensive asylum cases, by immigration court. The X 
axis represents the court, and the Y axis represents the percent. The 
lighter shaded bars represent defensive granted, and the darker shaded 
bars represent affirmative granted. 

Court: Arlington; 
Affirmative granted: 31.4; 
Defensive granted: 27.8. 

Court: Atlanta; 
Affirmative granted: 6.1; 
Defensive granted: 7.1. 

Court: Baltimore; 
Affirmative granted: 47.5; 
Defensive granted: 32.9. 

Court: Bloomington; 
Affirmative granted: 27; 
Defensive granted: 18.5. 

Court: Boston; 
Affirmative granted: 30; 
Defensive granted: 21.4. 

Court: Chicago; 
Affirmative granted: 35.1; 
Defensive granted: 26.9. 

Court: Dallas; 
Affirmative granted: 45; 
Defensive granted: 22.8. 

Court: Denver; 
Affirmative granted: 33.6; 
Defensive granted: 17.8. 

Court: Detroit; 
Affirmative granted: 20.7; 
Defensive granted: 14.2. 

Court: Houston; 
Affirmative granted: 24.3; 
Defensive granted: 10.3. 

Court: Los Angeles; 
Affirmative granted: 26.6; 
Defensive granted: 18.4. 

Court: Miami; 
Affirmative granted: 19.1; 
Defensive granted: 13.7. 

Court: New York; 
Affirmative granted: 54.4; 
Defensive granted: 35.4. 

Court: Newark; 
Affirmative granted: 32.4; 
Defensive granted: 24. 

Court: Orlando; 
Affirmative granted: 42.8; 
Defensive granted: 33.4. 

Court: Philadelphia; 
Affirmative granted: 26.7; 
Defensive granted: 16.5. 

Court: San Diego; 
Affirmative granted: 27.1; 
Defensive granted: 20.7. 

Court: San Francisco; 
Affirmative granted: 46; 
Defensive granted: 34.9. 

Court: Seattle; 
Affirmative granted: 30.8; 
Defensive granted: 14.9. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

We examined grant rates for applicants of the same nationality and 
found sizable differences across immigration courts for both 
affirmative and defensive cases. For example, for the 19 immigration 
courts that decided 50 or more cases from the 20 countries, we found 
that less than 1 percent of Guatemalan affirmative asylum seekers in 
Atlanta were granted asylum, while around 30 percent of those in San 
Francisco were granted asylum. Similarly, 12 percent of Chinese 
affirmative asylum seekers were granted asylum in Atlanta, while 75 
percent were granted asylum in Orlando. Even when immigration courts 
are relatively close to one another geographically, there were 
sometimes large differences in asylum decisions for a particular 
nationality and sometimes not. For example, the grant rate for 
affirmative asylum cases in New York and Newark was identical or 
similar for Chinese, El Salvadoran, and Nigerian applicants (table 1). 
In contrast, the grant rate for affirmative applicants from Colombia, 
Indonesia, and Peru was more than 2.5 times higher in New York than in 
nearby Newark. 

Table 1: Affirmative Grant Rate for Selected Nationalities in Two 
Geographically Proximal Immigration Courts: 

Immigration Court: New York; Applicants' nationality: China: 57%; 
Applicants' nationality: El Salvador: 9%; Applicants' nationality: 
Nigeria: 36%; Applicants' nationality: Colombia: 69%; Applicants' 
nationality: Indonesia: 61%; Applicants' nationality: Peru: 54%. 

Immigration Court: Newark; 
Applicants' nationality: China: 57%; Applicants' nationality: El 
Salvador: 7%; Applicants' nationality: Nigeria: 39%; Applicants' 
nationality: Colombia: 26%; Applicants' nationality: Indonesia: 19%; 
Applicants' nationality: Peru: 17%. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: For full information on grant and denial rates for affirmative 
and defensive cases by country and immigration court for immigration 
courts deciding 50 or more cases, see table 12. 

[End of table] 

Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Differed Significantly across 
Immigration Courts Even After the Effects of Other Factors Were 
Controlled: 

The likelihood of being granted asylum differed considerably across 
immigration courts, even after we statistically controlled 
simultaneously for the effects of a number of factors. For example, we 
found that relative to Atlanta, affirmative asylum applicants in San 
Francisco were about 12 times more likely to be granted asylum, 
applicants in New York were about 10 times more likely to be granted 
asylum, and applicants in Dallas and Houston were about 7 times more 
likely to be granted asylum. Defensive applicants in these cities were 
also more likely to be granted asylum than in Atlanta, with the 
likelihood being about 15 times greater in San Francisco, 8 times 
greater in New York, and about 4 times greater in Dallas and Houston. 
In these analyses we controlled for applicants' nationality; the time 
period in which their case was decided; and whether they had 
representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, and, 
among defensive cases, if they were ever detained. (See tables 13 and 
14 in app. II for the likelihood of applicants being granted asylum in 
each of the 19 immigration courts.) 

Data limitations prevented us from controlling for other factors that 
could have contributed to variability in case outcomes. Although we 
were able to control some factors related to the merits of asylum cases 
(such as nationality and whether the applicant appeared for the asylum 
hearing), we did not statistically control for the underlying facts and 
merits of the cases being decided because data were not available. This 
is because asylum decisions require a determination of applicant 
credibility, often without corroborating evidence, and immigration 
judges generally do not, and are not required to, document each factor 
(such as applicants' demeanor while testifying) that went into their 
overall assessment of credibility. It would be difficult and burdensome 
for them to do so. Therefore, we were not in a position determine the 
extent to which such factors accounted for the pronounced differences 
that we found in the likelihood of applicants being granted asylum 
across immigration courts and judges. Nonetheless, these multivariate 
analyses can increase the understanding of variability in asylum 
decisions because our statistical controls help account for differences 
among immigration judges and applicants and enable comparisons to be 
made across immigration courts and judges. 

In the following sections, we examine the effects of each of the 
factors that we were able to control in our statistical analyses. 

Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Varied by Nationality: 

Just as the likelihood of being granted asylum varied across 
immigration courts, it also varied by nationality. The grant rate for 
affirmative cases exceeded 50 percent for asylum seekers from some 
countries, including Albania, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, Somalia, 
and Yugoslavia (see fig. 3). For other countries, including El 
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, it was lower than 10 percent. 
Similarly, while about 50 percent of asylum seekers in defensive cases 
from Iran and Ethiopia were granted asylum and almost 60 percent of 
such cases from Somalia were granted asylum, the same was true of 13 
percent or less defensive asylum cases from El Salvador, Honduras and 
Indonesia. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum Cases Granted, 
by Nationality: 

This figure is a combination bar graph showing the percentage of 
affirmative and defensive asylum cases granted, by nationality. The X 
axis represents the nationality, and the Y axis represents the percent. 
The lighter shading represents affirmative granted, and the darker 
shading represents defensive granted. 

Nationality: Albania; 
Affirmative granted: 56; 
Defensive granted: 38.7. 

Nationality: Bangladesh; 
Affirmative granted: 32.2; 
Defensive granted: 29.2. 

Nationality: China; 
Affirmative granted: 54.4; 
Defensive granted: 34.8. 

Nationality: Colombia; 
Affirmative granted: 34.3; 
Defensive granted: 20.9. 

Nationality: El Salvador; 
Affirmative granted: 6.9; 
Defensive granted: 7.3. 

Nationality: Ethiopia; 
Affirmative granted: 53.2; 
Defensive granted: 52.1. 

Nationality: Guatemala; 
Affirmative granted: 9.4; 
Defensive granted: 13.8. 

Nationality: Haiti; 
Affirmative granted: 16.3; 
Defensive granted: 12.6. 

Nationality: Honduras; 
Affirmative granted: 9.8; 
Defensive granted: 10.7. 

Nationality: India; 
Affirmative granted: 42.3; 
Defensive granted: 24.9. 

Nationality: Indonesia; 
Affirmative granted: 33.4; 
Defensive granted: 10.6. 

Nationality: Iran; 
Affirmative granted: 58.3; 
Defensive granted: 49.9. 

Nationality: Mexico; 
Affirmative granted: 7.2; 
Defensive granted: 16.3. 

Nationality: Nicaragua; 
Affirmative granted: 16.2; 
Defensive granted: 14.8. 

Nationality: Nigeria; 
Affirmative granted: 34.9; 
Defensive granted: 26.8. 

Nationality: Pakistan; 
Affirmative granted: 39.9; 
Defensive granted: 23.2. 

Nationality: Peru; 
Affirmative granted: 31; 
Defensive granted: 28.1. 

Nationality: Russia; 
Affirmative granted: 63; 
Defensive granted: 43.1. 

Nationality: Somalia; 
Affirmative granted: 55; 
Defensive granted: 57.7. 

Nationality: Yugoslavia; 
Affirmative granted: 57.9; 
Defensive granted: 47.2. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

The likelihood of being granted asylum also differed considerably 
across the 20 nationalities, even after we statistically controlled 
simultaneously for the effects of the immigration court the case was 
heard in; the time period in which the case was decided; and whether 
applicants had representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1 year 
of entry, and, among defensive cases, if they were ever detained. For 
example, among affirmative asylum applicants, the likelihood of being 
granted asylum after controlling for these factors was about 1.5 times 
greater if the applicant was from Russia than Albania, about 3 times 
greater if the applicant was from Somalia than Nigeria; and about 4 
times greater if the applicant was from Iran than Bangladesh or India. 
Differences in the extent to which applicants from various countries 
are granted or denied asylum in the United States is not surprising in 
light of the differences that exist among countries' political climates 
and human rights records. (See tables 13 and 14 in app. II for full 
information on the likelihood of affirmative and defensive cases being 
granted asylum for the 20 nationalities we examined.) 

Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Has Increased over Time: 

Grant rates generally increased from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 
2007 (see fig. 4). This was the case for both affirmative and defensive 
applicants, although grant rates for affirmative applicants increased 
substantially more than they did for defensive applicants. The grant 
rates for defensive applicants did not change substantially during the 
period from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2005, and grant rates 
for affirmative applicants did not change substantially during the 
period from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005. Beginning in 
fiscal year 1998, affirmative asylum applications were more likely to 
be granted than defensive asylum applications, while the opposite was 
true in the 3 fiscal years for which we had data prior to that time. 

Figure 4: Asylum Grant Rates for Affirmative and Defensive Applicants, 
by Fiscal Year of Immigration Judge Decision: 

This figure is a combination line graph showing asylym grant rates for 
affirmative and defensive applicants, by fiscal year of immigration 
judge decision. The X axis represents the fiscal year, and the Y axis 
represents the percent granted. One line represents the affirmative, 
and the other line represents defensive. 

Fiscal year: 1995; 
Affirmative: 11.8; 
Defensive: 13.9. 

Fiscal year: 1996; 
Affirmative: 15.7; 
Defensive: 18. 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
Affirmative: 23.6; 
Defensive: 24.3. 

Fiscal year: 1998; 
Affirmative: 30.9; 
Defensive: 25.5. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Affirmative: 33.1; 
Defensive: 28. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Affirmative: 38.2; 
Defensive: 26.6. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Affirmative: 41.8; 
Defensive: 28.2. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Affirmative: 43.6; 
Defensive: 25.8. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Affirmative: 43.3; 
Defensive: 25.8.

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Affirmative: 43.6; 
Defensive: 27.1. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Affirmative: 41.1; 
Defensive: 26.8. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Affirmative: 46; 
Defensive: 33.1. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Affirmative: 47.3; 
Defensive: 42.4. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

When we examined grant rates in three distinct time periods--(1) from 
the beginning of our data series on October 1, 1994, through March 30, 
1997, the day prior to the implementation date for the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; (2) from 
April 1, 1997, through September 10, 2001; and (3) from September 11, 
2001, through the final day in our data series on April 30, 2007--and 
we found that the grant rate for affirmative cases doubled from the 
first to the second period (increasing from 17 percent to 35 percent) 
and increased by another 9 percent (to 44 percent) from the second to 
the third period. We also found that for affirmative cases, in 
particular, denials resulting from claimants not showing up for their 
asylum hearings decreased greatly over the three periods, from 44 
percent in the first period to 23 percent in the second and only 4 
percent in the third. The percentage of defensive cases granted asylum 
also increased in each period, from 17 percent to 27 percent to 29 
percent, but not as much as affirmative cases. While we do not have 
direct evidence that explains these findings, the relatively lower 
grant rates in the early period may reflect the effects of reforms 
instituted in the mid 1990s to reduce fraud in the asylum system, 
[Footnote 33] and the plateau in defensive grant rates after 1997 may 
reflect the effects of changes called for by the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which made it more 
difficult for applicants with criminal records to get asylum. The 
overall increase in asylum grants over time may also have been because 
of, in part, an increase in asylum applications from and asylum grants 
to Chinese nationals. Chinese applicants accounted for 18, 26, and 34 
percent of the total number of asylum cases in the three time periods, 
respectively. 

The likelihood of being granted asylum also differed considerably 
across the three time periods, after we statistically controlled 
simultaneously for the effects of the immigration court the case was 
heard in; the applicant's nationality; and whether applicants had 
representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, and, 
among defensive cases, if they were ever detained. For example, among 
affirmative applicants, the likelihood of being granted asylum doubled 
from the first time period (October 1, 1994, to March 31, 1997) to the 
second (April 1, 1997 to September 10, 2001), and increased again from 
the second to the third time period (September 11, 2001 to April 30, 
2007) by 35 percent. Officials at EOIR speculated that, in addition to 
the reasons cited above, regime change in some countries; changes in 
case law; and efforts to deter cases that lack merit may have been 
among the reasons for the increase in asylum grants over time. 

Representation Was Associated with Greater Likelihood of Being Granted 
Asylum: 

For both affirmative and defensive cases, having representation was 
associated with more than a three-fold increase in the asylum grant 
rate compared to those without representation. The grant rate for 
affirmative applicants with representation was 39 percent, compared to 
12 percent for those without representation. For defensive cases, the 
grant rate for applicants with representation was 27 percent, compared 
to 8 percent without. 

Representation generally doubled the likelihood of affirmative and 
defensive cases being granted asylum, after we controlled for the 
effects of the immigration court the case was heard in; the applicant's 
nationality; the time period in which the decision was made; and 
whether the applicant claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, 
and, among defensive cases, if the applicant was ever detained. 
According to EOIR officials, there could be several explanations for 
why representation can increase the likelihood of applicants being 
granted asylum. For example, officials said that attorneys can help 
applicants present their case more effectively because asylum law is 
complicated and applicants face cultural barriers; and attorneys can 
make better decisions about the viability of a case, so claims that are 
not likely to be granted won't go forward. 

Filing Application within 1 Year of Entry Was Associated with Greater 
Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum: 

Just as having representation was associated with a greater likelihood 
of being granted asylum, so was filing an application within 1 year of 
entry to the United States. Affirmative applicants who filed their 
asylum application within 1 year of entry to the United States had a 
grant rate of 42 percent, compared with 26 percent of those who did not 
file within 1 year. The grant rate for defensive applicants was 29 
percent among those who filed within 1 year of entry, and 22 percent 
among those who did not. 

Filing within 1 year of entry increased the likelihood of affirmative 
and defensive cases being granted asylum by 40 percent and 30 percent, 
respectively, after we controlled for the effects of the immigration 
court in which the case was heard; the applicant's nationality; the 
time period in which the decision was made; and whether the applicant 
had representation, claimed dependents, and, among defensive cases, if 
the applicant was ever detained. Since those who fail to apply for 
asylum within 1 year of entry are generally barred from receiving 
asylum, the positive association between filing within 1 year and 
immigration judges granting asylum is understandable.[Footnote 34] 

Claiming Dependents on the Asylum Application Was Associated with 
Greater Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum: 

For both affirmative and defensive cases, the grant rate for those who 
claimed dependents on their asylum application was higher than for 
those who did not. Among affirmative applicants, 43 percent of those 
who claimed dependents were granted asylum, compared to 36 percent of 
those who did not. Among defensive applicants, the grant rate was 37 
percent for those who claimed dependents and 25 percent for those who 
did not. 

The positive association between asylum grants and claiming dependents 
persisted after we controlled for the effects of the immigration court 
in which the case was heard; the applicant's nationality; the time 
period in which the decision was made; and whether the applicant had 
representation, filed within 1 year of entry, and, among defensive 
cases, if the applicant was ever detained. The likelihood of being 
granted asylum was roughly 50 percent greater for affirmative cases, 
and roughly 80 percent greater for defensive cases, when the asylum 
applicant claimed dependents on the asylum application. While we do not 
know why applicants with dependents were more likely to be granted 
asylum, those who came to their hearings with a spouse or dependent 
children may have appeared to adjudicators to have more sympathetic 
cases than applicants who appeared alone. 

Defensive Applicants Who Had Been Detained Had Lower Likelihood of 
Being Granted Asylum Than Defensive Applicants Who Had Not Been 
Detained: 

Asylum results differed depending on whether the data were tabulated 
using grant rates or analyzed using statistical controls for the 
effects of other outcome-related factors. In terms of grant rates, 
there was little difference in the grant rates of defensive cases who 
had and had not been detained. The grant rate for applicants who had 
been detained was 25 percent, compared to 27 percent for those who had 
not been detained. 

However, when we controlled for the effects of the immigration court 
the case was heard in; the applicant's nationality; the time period in 
which the decision was made; and whether the applicant had 
representation, filed within 1 year of entry, or claimed dependents on 
the asylum application, we found that those who had been detained were 
about two-thirds as likely to be granted asylum as those who had not 
been detained. According to EOIR officials, the category of applicants 
who had been detained may contain a higher percentage of criminal 
applicants, who may be statutorily ineligible to be granted asylum. 
Additionally, detained applicants may have more difficulty obtaining 
evidence in support of their claims. We did not examine the effects of 
detention in affirmative cases, as very few of the affirmative 
applicants, who are generally free to live in the United States pending 
the completion of their claims, were detained during their removal 
hearings. 

Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum Differed across Immigration Judges: 

Immigration judges varied considerably in the asylum decisions they 
rendered, both across and within immigration courts, and in both 
affirmative and defensive cases. Grant rates for the immigration judges 
in our review ranged between 2 percent and 93 percent for affirmative 
cases, and between 2 percent and 72 percent for defensive cases. Our 
analysis was based on 196 immigration judges who heard more than 50 
affirmative or defensive asylum cases from one or more of the 20 
nationalities between October 1, 1994, and April 30, 2007. The asylum 
caseload of these 196 immigration judges consisted of more than three- 
quarters of all affirmative cases and nearly 90 percent of all 
defensive cases from the 19 different immigration courts we considered. 
(See fig. 5, below, and tables 17 and 18 in app. III, for the grant and 
denial rates of all the immigration judges included in our review.) 

We examined the data to determine if variability in grant rates across 
immigration judges was at least partly because of the fact that 
different immigration courts have proportionately different numbers of 
cases from different countries. We found that even within immigration 
courts, there were pronounced differences in grant rates across 
immigration judges. This was the case even though asylum and other 
immigration cases were reportedly assigned to immigration judges 
largely at random. For example, grant rates for affirmative cases 
ranged between 19 percent and 61 percent in Arlington, Va., 8 percent 
and 55 percent in Boston, 2 percent and 72 percent in Miami, and 3 
percent and 93 percent in New York City (see fig. 5). The variation 
across immigration judges in many of the remaining courts was similarly 
large. For defensive cases, there was also large variability in the 
grant rates of immigration judges within the same immigration court, 
but the difference between the highest and lowest granting immigration 
judge within each immigration court was somewhat lower than for 
affirmative cases (see app. III, fig. 13). 

Figure 5: Immigration Judge Asylum Grant Rates, Affirmative Cases, by 
Immigration Court: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: Each line within a court represents the average grant rate for a 
single immigration judge. 

[End of figure] 

The likelihood of being granted asylum differed considerably across 
immigration judges within the same immigration court even after we 
statistically controlled simultaneously for the effects of applicants' 
nationality; the time period in which their case was decided; and 
whether they had representation, claimed dependents, filed within 1 
year of entry, and, among defensive cases, if they were ever detained. 
For example, in the New York immigration court, the likelihood of an 
affirmative applicant being granted asylum was 420 times greater if the 
applicant's case were handled by the immigration judge who had the 
highest likelihood of granting asylum than if the applicant's case were 
handled by the immigration judge who had the lowest likelihood in that 
immigration court. If we consider the two immigration judges at the 
highest and lowest ends of the granting spectrum to be outliers, and 
instead compare immigration judges who were second highest and second 
lowest, the disparity was still great. The likelihood of being granted 
asylum in New York was 122 times greater for applicants whose cases 
were decided by the immigration judge with the second highest versus 
the second lowest likelihood of granting asylum. Even when we compared 
the third highest and third lowest asylum granting immigration judges 
in New York, applicants were still 35 times more likely to be granted 
asylum by the former than the latter. For defensive cases in New York, 
the likelihood of being granted asylum was 93 times greater for 
applicants whose cases were decided by the immigration judge with the 
highest versus the lowest likelihood of granting asylum in the 
immigration court. (Table 2 below provides information on the extent to 
which the likelihood of being granted asylum varied within the same 
immigration court; and the last column of tables 17 and 18 in app. III 
shows the likelihood of being granted asylum by each immigration judge 
in each immigration court, after controlling for the effects of other 
factors.) As can be determined from table 2, in 14 out of 19 
immigration courts for affirmative cases, and in 13 out of 19 
immigration courts for defensive cases, the likelihood of being granted 
asylum was at least 4 times as great for applicants whose cases were 
decided by the immigration judge with the highest versus lowest grant 
rate in the immigration court. For example, an affirmative applicant 
whose case was assigned to the immigration judge most likely to grant 
asylum in Arlington, Va., had a likelihood (or odds ratio) of being 
granted asylum that was nearly 6 times as great as an applicant whose 
case was assigned to the immigration judge least likely to grant asylum 
in the Arlington immigration court. In a later section of this report, 
we discuss recent initiatives by EOIR to provide training, mentoring, 
and supervision to immigration judges whose performance EOIR has 
determined needs improvement, using indicators such as asylum grant 
rates of the immigration judges, complaints filed about immigration 
judge performance, and reversals and remands from the BIA. 

Table 2: Likelihood of Being Granted Asylum If Case Was Heard by the 
Immigration Judge Most Likely to Grant Asylum, Compared to the 
Immigration Judge Least Likely to Grant Asylum, by Immigration Court: 

1. Arlington; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 6; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 5.95; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 7; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 21.73. 

2. Atlanta; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 5; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 6.09; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 2; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 2.75. 

3. Baltimore; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 6; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 4.10; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 5; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 4.45. 

4. Bloomington; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 2; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 3.14; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 2; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 1.69. 

5. Boston; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 8; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 12.71; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 9; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 6.19. 

6. Chicago; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 7; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 4.05; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 2.46. 

7. Dallas; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 2; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 1.68; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 4; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 11.73. 

8. Denver; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 3; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 1.57; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 1.31. 

9. Detroit; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 2; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 1.27; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 11.5. 

10. Houston; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 5; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 6.56; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 18.65. 

11. Los Angeles; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 36; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 18.19; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 32; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 24.78. 

12. Miami; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 29; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 122.11; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 26; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 50.64. 

13. New York; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 38; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 419.83; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 39; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 93.40. 

14. Newark; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 7; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 7.46; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 9.15. 

15. Orlando; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 4; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 2.93; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 5.51. 

16. Philadelphia; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 4; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 9.76; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 3; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 2.57. 

17. San Diego; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 6; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 4.07; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 8; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 4.93. 

18. San Francisco; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 23; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 38.77; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 20; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 21.80. 

19. Seattle; 
Affirmative cases: Number of immigration judges[A]: 3; Affirmative 
cases: Adjusted odds ratio[B]: 10.89; Defensive cases: Number of 
immigration judges[C]: 5; Defensive cases: Adjusted odds ratio: 
Adjusted odds ratio: 2.67. 

Source: GAO Analysis of EOIR data. 

[A] Numbers represent immigration judges hearing 50 or more affirmative 
cases in their primary immigration court. 

[B] Represents the relative likelihood (or odds ratio) of the 
immigration judge with the highest likelihood of granting asylum 
compared to the immigration judge with the lowest likelihood of 
granting asylum within each immigration court, after we statistically 
controlled for the effects of applicants' nationality; the time period 
in which their case was decided; and whether they had representation, 
claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, and, among defensive 
cases, if they were ever detained. 

[C] Numbers represent immigration judges hearing 50 or more defensive 
cases in their primary immigration court. 

[End of table] 

Asylum Grant Rates Were Weakly Related to Immigration Judge 
Characteristics: 

In a separate set of analyses, after statistically controlling for 
claimant and immigration judge characteristics, immigration judges' 
gender and length of experience as an immigration judge were associated 
with the likelihood of being granted asylum; while age, race/ethnicity, 
veteran status, prior government immigration experience, prior 
experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization, 
caseload size, and the presidential administration under which judges 
were appointed were not. These results are detailed in appendix III, 
tables 19 and 20, and related text. 

With respect to gender differences, male immigration judges' grant rate 
was lower than that of females for both affirmative and defensive 
asylum cases. We found that after statistically controlling for 14 
factors, male immigration judges were about 60 percent as likely as 
female immigration judges to grant asylum in both affirmative cases and 
defensive cases. The 14 factors that we controlled statistically in 
this analysis were immigration judge's age, caseload size, length of 
service, race/ethnicity, veteran status, prior government immigration 
experience, prior experience doing immigration work for a non-profit 
organization, the presidential administration under which the 
immigration judge was appointed, applicant's nationality, whether the 
applicant was represented, time period when the case was decided, and 
if the applicant had claimed dependents on the asylum application, 
filed within 1 year of entry, and, among defensive cases, if the 
applicant was ever detained. 

With respect to length of service, immigration judges with less than 3 
½ years of experience had a lower affirmative grant rate than those 
with 3 ½ to 10 years of experience, or those with 10 or more years of 
experience as an immigration judge. For defensive cases, immigration 
judges with 10 or more years of experience had the highest grant rate. 
After we statistically controlled for the effects of the same 14 
factors as in our analysis of gender differences, we found that net of 
these other factors, immigration judges with 3 ½ to 10 years of 
experience were more likely than less experienced immigration judges to 
grant asylum in affirmative cases, by a factor of 1.25. In other words, 
controlling for the effects of the other factors, these immigration 
judges were 25 percent more likely to grant asylum than those with less 
experience. Immigration judges with more than 10 years of experience 
were also somewhat more likely than the least experienced immigration 
judges to grant asylum, but the difference was not statistically 
significant. Immigration judges' experience level was not significantly 
associated with outcomes in defensive asylum cases. 

None of the other immigration judge characteristics had significant 
effects on the likelihood of being granted asylum. This suggests that 
the immigration judge characteristics for which we had data were not 
sufficient to account for the large differences in the likelihood of 
being granted asylum across individual judges. 

Immigration Judges within the Same Immigration Courts Hearing Asylum 
Claims from Applicants of the Same Nationality Varied in Likelihood of 
Granting Asylum, but Immigration Judges' Characteristics Did Not 
Generally Affect Differences in Outcome: 

In our final set of analyses, we continued to find substantial 
disparities in the likelihood of being granted asylum even when we 
looked at cases that shared certain characteristics--that is, the cases 
of asylum applicants of the same nationality who appeared before 
immigration judges in the same immigration court. Our analyses focused 
on the likelihood of being granted asylum in four country-immigration 
court combinations for affirmative cases (China in New York, China in 
Los Angeles, Haiti in Miami, and India in San Francisco), and two 
country-immigration court combinations for defensive cases (China in 
New York, and Haiti in Miami).[Footnote 35] The results of these 
analyses are summarized in table 21 in appendix III. 

Many and often most of the immigration judges in the same immigration 
court differed significantly in their likelihood of granting asylum to 
applicants of the same nationality when compared to the immigration 
judge who represented the average likelihood of granting asylum in that 
immigration court (the "average immigration judge"). This was the case 
both before and after we statistically controlled for the effects of 
five claimant characteristics (representation, claimed one or more 
dependents on application, filed for asylum within 1 year of entry to 
the United States, time period in which application was filed, and, 
among defensive cases, if the applicant was ever detained). In the four 
immigration courts where we examined affirmative asylum cases and 
statistically controlled for the five claimant characteristics, we 
found that that between 34 percent of immigration judges handling cases 
from China in Los Angeles and 84 percent of immigration judges handling 
cases from China in New York had a likelihood of granting asylum that 
differed significantly from that of the average immigration judge in 
the same immigration court. In the two immigration courts where we 
examined defensive asylum cases and statistically controlled for 
claimant characteristics, we found that in both, approximately 40 
percent of immigration judges differed significantly from the average 
immigration judge in the same immigration court in their likelihood of 
granting asylum. 

The size of the estimated effects of the claimant characteristics was 
comparable in these analyses to what we found when we previously looked 
across all immigration judges and all 19 immigration courts. Having 
dependents significantly increased the likelihood of being granted 
asylum in five of the six immigration court-country combinations, while 
having representation and applying for asylum within 1 year of entry to 
the United States significantly increased the likelihood of being 
granted asylum in four of the six combinations. Further, the likelihood 
of being granted asylum significantly increased over time for both 
affirmative and defensive Chinese applicants in New York, but 
significantly decreased for affirmative Chinese applicants in Los 
Angeles. 

Noteworthy, also, is the absence of consistent effects of immigration 
judge characteristics. With some exceptions, we generally found that 
the following factors did not have statistically significant effects on 
the likelihood of being granted asylum: immigration judges' age, race/ 
ethnicity, veteran status, prior government immigration experience, or 
prior experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization. 

EOIR Has Taken Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges in 
the Asylum Process, but Some Actions to Identify Immigration Judges 
with Training Needs Were Limited, and the Resources and Guidance Needed 
to Ensure Effective Supervision Had Not Been Determined: 

EOIR has taken actions to improve its assistance to aliens in removal 
proceedings by, among other things, expanding programs to help aliens 
obtain representation, improving accuracy in EOIR's list of free legal 
service providers, and drafting proposed regulations to promote the 
availability of free and low-cost legal services. EOIR has also taken 
actions to identify and improve the performance of immigration judges 
who may need supervisory attention. EOIR conducted studies of 
immigration judges' grant rates, but did not statistically control for 
factors that can affect asylum outcomes. EOIR said it was using 
information on which immigration judges had unusually high or low 
asylum grant rates, in conjunction with other indicators of 
performance, to identify immigration judges in need of greater 
supervision, and has taken steps to increase training and make 
mentoring available for all immigration judges. However, EOIR's 
analyses of immigration judges' decisions did not statistically control 
for a number of factors that affected those decisions, and EOIR has not 
determined the ACIJ resources and guidance needed to ensure that 
immigration judges are effectively supervised. 

EOIR Has Taken Actions to Expand Its Pro Bono Programs: 

EOIR has taken several actions to improve its assistance to aliens in 
removal proceedings, including expanding its Legal Orientation Program 
(LOP), improving the accuracy of its list of free legal providers, 
drafting proposed regulations to help promote the availability of free 
and low-cost legal services, and issuing a policy memorandum to 
facilitate pro bono representation in removal proceedings. The LOP is 
an initiative designed to improve efficiency in immigration courts and 
assist adult detained aliens in removal proceedings by helping them 
understand their legal rights and how to access potential 
counsel.[Footnote 36] 

EOIR expanded its LOP in response to an August 2006 directive from the 
Attorney General to improve and expand pro bono services. Pursuant to 
the Attorney General's directive, EOIR increased its cadre of LOP sites 
from 6 to 13, although 2 sites were subsequently discontinued in 2007 
and 1 additional site was added that year.[Footnote 37] In March 2008, 
EOIR stated that because of an increase in funding for LOP in fiscal 
year 2008 (from $2 million to $3.76 million), it expected to establish 
new programs at 6 to 10 additional sites by the end of calendar year 
2008 and to determine by September 1, 2008, at which current sites 
program services would be increased. In May 2008, an EOIR-funded 
evaluation of the outcomes and performance of the LOP reported that 
from January 1 through December 31, 2006, unrepresented asylum 
applicants were more likely to be granted asylum in immigration court 
when they received such LOP-provided services as individual 
orientations and self-help workshops, in addition to the initial group 
orientation that nearly all LOP participants receive.[Footnote 38] 
According to the Vera Institute of Justice, asylum applicants who 
received any of these additional services were granted asylum 9.4 
percent of the time, versus 2.4 percent for those LOP participants who 
attended group orientations alone. The evaluation also reported 
increases from 2002 (6 months before the program began) to 2005 in 
representation rates for individuals with applications for relief-- 
including asylum--in sites with LOP programs, compared to sites without 
programs.[Footnote 39] GAO did not assess the reliability of the data 
used by Vera in its analyses. 

EOIR has also taken actions to improve the accuracy of its list of 
eligible free legal service providers, and has drafted proposed 
regulations to strengthen the requirements for attorneys and 
organizations wishing to be placed on this list. According to EOIR, all 
individuals in immigration proceedings are to be provided a copy of the 
"List of Free Legal Service Providers," maintained by the Office of the 
Chief Immigration Judge. The list was created with the intent to 
increase opportunities for indigent aliens to obtain free legal 
counsel, and contains the names of attorneys, bar associations, and 
certain non-profit organizations who are willing to provide free legal 
services to indigent individuals in immigration proceedings. In 2005, 
EOIR audited the Free Legal Service Providers list for accuracy and 
eliminated providers that it determined were no longer providing pro 
bono services. In March 2008, EOIR stated that it had increased its 
monitoring of entities on the list and had acted to remove the names of 
attorneys and organizations that have not met the list's requirements. 
Furthermore, as a result of the Attorney General's directive to improve 
and expand pro bono programs, EOIR has drafted two proposed regulations 
which it says will ensure the integrity and promote the availability of 
free and low-cost legal services. As of September 2008, these draft 
proposed regulations were under review with DOJ's Office of Legal 
Policy. The first is to strengthen the requirements for entities and 
individuals wishing to be placed on the "Free Legal Service Providers" 
list. The second is to strengthen the process for recognizing and 
accrediting organizations and individuals charging only nominal fees 
for providing immigration services and wishing to be placed on EOIR's 
Recognition and Accreditation Roster, which appears on EOIR's Web site. 
EOIR's Pro Bono Coordinator stated that this regulation would take 
longer to develop, as it requires joint rule-making with DHS's USCIS 
and ICE. 

EOIR issued a policy memorandum to the immigration courts in March 
2008, which listed guidelines and best practices for facilitating pro 
bono representation in removal hearings--including such activities as 
appointing a liaison immigration judge to coordinate with local pro 
bono providers, and encouraging immigration judges to be flexible in 
scheduling hearings that involve pro bono providers who may require 
additional time to recruit and train representatives. The memorandum 
also listed guidelines for tracking pro bono cases in EOIR's case 
management database. EOIR stated that tracking appearances by pro bono 
counsel will enable it, among other things, to better monitor the 
number of pro bono cases handled by entities on the "Free Legal Service 
Providers" list and verify genuine pro bono representation. EOIR 
officials stated that EOIR planned to review how successfully 
immigration judges and immigration court personnel were tracking pro 
bono cases at the summer 2008 meeting of the committee set up to 
implement the Attorney General's directive regarding pro bono 
representation. 

EOIR Has Sought to Identify Immigration Judges Needing Supervisory 
Attention and Improve Their Performance, but EOIR's Analyses of 
Immigration Judge Decisions Were Limited, As Were the ACIJ Resources 
and Guidance Available to Supervise Immigration Judges: 

EOIR has taken several actions to identify immigration judges who may 
need supervisory attention and has designed mechanisms to improve the 
performance of those judges. Beginning in 2006, partially in response 
to a directive from the Attorney General that EOIR identify immigration 
judges in need of additional training or supervision, EOIR's Office of 
the Chief Immigration Judge conducted two internal studies to determine 
asylum grant rates across all immigration judges. However, these 
studies did not statistically control for the effects of a number of 
factors that could affect the asylum outcome. This statistical 
procedure would have increased the completeness, accuracy, and 
usefulness of comparing asylum decisions across immigration courts and 
judges. EOIR said it was using information reflecting which immigration 
judges had unusually high or low asylum grant rates, in conjunction 
with other indicators of performance, to identify immigration judges in 
need of greater supervision. EOIR has also taken actions to improve 
training for immigration judges and has developed a mentor directory to 
encourage immigration judges to share best practices. However, there 
are relatively few ACIJs available to supervise many geographically 
dispersed immigration judges, and EOIR did not provide explicit 
guidance to ACIJs on the elements of effective supervision of 
immigration judges. 

EOIR Conducted Studies of Immigration Judges' Grant Rates, but the 
Usefulness of the Results Was Limited Because Factors Affecting Asylum 
Outcomes Were Not Statistically Controlled: 

EOIR conducted two studies of the asylum grant rates of its immigration 
judges, but neither study used statistical controls to examine the 
effects on grant rates of factors associated with asylum outcomes. EOIR 
stated that in 2006, its Office of the Chief Immigration Judge 
conducted a study to determine the grant rates for all immigration 
judges who made any asylum decision from fiscal years 2001 through 
2006. EOIR conducted a follow-up study in June 2008, which updated the 
immigration judge grant rate information through the end of fiscal year 
2007. EOIR said it did not run statistical analyses on the data, nor 
use the results of the 2006 study to identify immigration judges whose 
grant rates could be considered to be outliers. EOIR officials also 
said that immigration judges' supervisors--the ACIJs--had not been 
informed of the study's results as of May 2008 because EOIR had not 
decided the value of the grant rate information. In contrast, EOIR's 
June 2008 grant rate study determined the asylum grant and denial rate 
for each immigration judge and identified those deemed to be outliers-
-that is, according to EOIR, immigration judges who were among the top 
16 percent of asylum granters and the top 16 percent of asylum deniers. 
Pursuant to the 2008 grant rate study, ACIJs were provided information 
on those immigration judges under their supervision whose grant or 
denial rates were among the top 16 percent of immigration judges in 
their local immigration court and nationally. 

When we compared the results of our multivariate statistical analyses 
with those based on immigration judge grant rates, we found 
considerable overlap as well as important differences between the two 
sets of results. Specifically, when we rank ordered the affirmative 
grant rates of all 196 immigration judges in our database (that is, 
organized them from highest to lowest granters) before statistical 
controls were applied, and correlated this with a similar rank ordering 
of the same 196 immigration judges' after statistical controls were 
applied, we found the correlation between the two to be high (.89). 
However, the relative position of a sizable number of immigration 
judges differed after we applied the statistical controls. With respect 
to affirmative cases, of the 25 immigration judges who had the highest 
asylum grant rates before we applied statistical controls and the 25 
immigration judges who had the highest likelihoods of granting asylum 
after we statistically controlled for other factors, 3 immigration 
judges were the same and 22 were different. As an example of a 
difference, one immigration judge whose grant rate ranked him as the 
105th highest asylum granter out of 196 immigration judges before 
statistical controls was the 17th highest granter after the effects of 
six factors associated with asylum outcomes were statistically 
controlled.[Footnote 40] Therefore, this particular immigration judge, 
who would appear to be relatively average in terms of grant rate, was 
in the top 10 percent of asylum granters after accounting for other 
factors relevant to asylum outcomes. Another immigration judge's 
relative position changed from 186 to 117 out of 196 immigration judges 
when looking at the grant rate versus the likelihood of granting 
asylum. In this case, the immigration judge would appear to be in the 
top 10 percent of asylum deniers, but was, in fact, more in line with 
other immigration judges' decisions after other factors were 
statistically controlled. There were numerous other large discrepancies 
between the relative positions of immigration judges, including one 
immigration judge who ranked as the 189th highest asylum granter before 
other factors were statistically controlled, and the 121st highest 
granter after; and another immigration judge who ranked as the 171st 
highest granter before other factors were statistically controlled, and 
the 67th highest granter after. 

In conducting its grant rate studies, EOIR attempted to take some 
factors into account such as whether the applicant was detained or had 
not appeared for the merits hearing. However, EOIR's grant rate studies 
did not take into account available data on the characteristics of 
asylum seekers (such as, nationality and representation) and 
immigration judges (such as gender and length of experience) that are 
statistically related to immigration judges' decisions to grant or deny 
asylum. The relationship between these characteristics and variability 
in asylum decisions by immigration judges across and within immigration 
courts can be determined using a multivariate statistical analysis. 
While generally accepted statistical practices include the use of 
multivariate analyses to statistically control for various factors that 
may affect outcomes when data on such factors are available, EOIR's 
studies did not statistically control for such factors. According to 
EOIR, (1) it does not have a trained statistician on staff who could 
analyze its data using such sophisticated statistical controls, and (2) 
its ability to obtain statistical expertise would depend on the 
availability of funding. While we recognize that EOIR does not 
currently have the expertise to conduct multivariate statistical 
analyses, without doing so, the completeness, accuracy, and usefulness 
of EOIR's grant rate studies are limited, and EOIR is hindered in its 
efforts to have the information it seeks to help it identify 
immigration judges who require additional training and supervision. The 
results of our statistical analyses could help EOIR, on an interim 
basis, further its understanding of immigration judges' asylum 
decisions. 

EOIR duly noted that caution must be exercised when evaluating 
disparities in asylum grants because the asylum process is complex, 
asylum decisions can be affected by factors unrelated to the underlying 
merits of the case (such as compliance with the 1-year filing 
deadline), and each case is unique and cannot be directly compared with 
other cases. As noted earlier, EOIR said it was using information on 
which immigration judges had unusually high or low asylum grant rates, 
in conjunction with other indicators of performance (such as reversal 
rates for legal error), to identify immigration judges in need of 
greater supervision. Further, EOIR said it was improving training for 
immigration judges and developing a program to encourage immigration 
judges to share best practices. 

Relatively Few ACIJs Were Tasked with Overseeing Many Immigration 
Judges, and Had Little Guidance to Help Assure Effective Supervision: 

In 2006, as part of an effort to increase management and oversight of 
immigration courts, EOIR reassigned a number of ACIJs from headquarters 
to immigration courts in field locations; however, insofar as ACIJs' 
being a key component of this effort, EOIR's ability to achieve its 
goal was hindered by limitations in both the availability of ACIJ 
resources and guidance to ensure that immigration judges were 
effectively supervised. EOIR's deployment of supervisors to field 
locations was a pilot program undertaken in response to the results of 
the Attorney General's 2006 review of the performance of immigration 
courts. This review was prompted by complaints from litigants and 
federal circuit courts, among others, about issues relating to the 
caliber of immigration judges' legal work and their treatment of aliens 
appearing before them. 

ACIJs have a broad scope of responsibility, including supervising a 
number of immigration judges in different locations. As of August 2008, 
EOIR had 10 out of a total 11 ACIJs functioning in supervisory roles-- 
6 were located in the field, and 4 were located in EOIR 
headquarters.[Footnote 41] The 6 ACIJs in the field, in addition to 
handling their own caseload of immigration cases, supervised 148 
immigration judges (69 percent of the total) in 32 different 
immigration courts.[Footnote 42] The 4 ACIJs in EOIR headquarters, in 
addition to handling administrative matters, supervised 68 immigration 
judges (31 percent of the total) in 22 different immigration 
courts.[Footnote 43] Exemplifying the span of supervisory 
responsibility assigned ACIJs, one field ACIJ was assigned to supervise 
27 immigration judges in 8 immigration courts in Texas and Louisiana; 
and a headquarters ACIJ was assigned to supervise 24 immigration judges 
in 8 immigration courts in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Although EOIR's deployment of ACIJs 
to field locations was an effort to improve managerial contact and 
oversight of immigration courts, the limited number of ACIJs, in 
combination with ACIJs' broad span of control and limited time for 
supervision, limits EOIR's ability to ensure that immigration judges 
are being effectively supervised. EOIR has not determined how many 
ACIJs it needs to effectively supervise immigration judges, and it has 
not provided ACIJs with guidance on how to carry out their supervisory 
role. Doing so would put EOIR in a better position to monitor 
immigration judge performance and take appropriate action to correct or 
prevent immigration judge performance issues that may arise. 

Officials at EOIR said that they depend on the judgment of its ACIJs to 
help identify and address the mentoring, training, and peer observation 
needs of immigration judges and that asylum grant rate is only one of 
several factors that may alert EOIR management to concerns about the 
performance of immigration judges and the potential need for 
ameliorative action. These officials further noted that information on 
remands and reversals of immigration judge decisions, and complaints 
from a wide variety of sources were also of great importance in 
identifying the need for ameliorative action. 

EOIR has a position description for its ACIJs that generically states 
that the role of the ACIJ is to manage and coordinate immigration judge 
activities and supervise the administrative operations of the 
adjudications program. It tasks ACIJs with a range of duties pertaining 
to legal, policy, operational, and human capital matters, including 
managing immigration judge activities. EOIR also has written 
performance appraisal standards for ACIJs' handling of people and 
workforce issues. However, these standards make brief and general 
reference to supervision in characterizing the behaviors that ACIJs are 
to demonstrate in order to obtain an outstanding, excellent, or 
successful rating on their handling of people and workforce issues. For 
example, to obtain a successful rating, ACIJs are to take actions such 
as training, discipline, and performance improvement plans to correct 
poor immigration judge performance. More detailed guidance did not 
exist regarding how ACIJs are to carry out their supervisory role, such 
as how to develop familiarity with the performance of the numerous, 
geographically dispersed immigration judges who were assigned to them, 
how they are to allocate their time between supervising immigration 
judges and handling their own caseload or operational duties, and how 
ACIJs are to use information on immigration judges' asylum grant rates 
in combination with other performance information they may collect. 

According to a headquarters ACIJ, immigration courts are all different 
and the supervisory role of the ACIJs depends on their location, 
caseload, the immigration judges they supervise, and their relationship 
with the private bar. Further, according to EOIR, as of May 2008, DOJ 
had not yet determined whether or for how long the field ACIJ pilot 
program should continue. While the circumstances of immigration judges 
may differ and while it is uncertain if the ACIJ pilot program will be 
temporary or permanent, ACIJs are nonetheless tasked with supervising 
immigration judges. Internal control standards call for federal 
agencies to design controls to assure that continuous supervision 
occurs to help ensure the effective management of the agencies' 
workforce. Given the ratio of ACIJs to immigration judges, the 
geographic distance between them in many cases, and the additional 
operational or adjudicative duties that consume the time of ACIJs, 
ensuring effective management through supervision cannot be easy to 
achieve. Providing more explicit guidance regarding the supervision 
ACIJs are to provide immigration judges, including how they are to use 
information on immigration judges' asylum grant rates in combination 
with other performance information they may collect, could put ACIJs in 
a better position to supervise immigration judges and take appropriate 
action to correct or prevent performance issues that may arise. 

Although EOIR has not yet developed more explicit guidance for the ACIJ 
supervisory role, EOIR has been working on developing performance 
appraisals for immigration judges, as recommended by the Attorney 
General. EOIR reported it had implemented a system to evaluate the 
performance of newly appointed immigration judges.[Footnote 44] In July 
2008, EOIR told us it had also developed a performance appraisal system 
for the remaining immigration judges, but the system had not yet been 
implemented as the immigration judges' union had asked to negotiate on 
various aspects of the proposed system. 

EOIR Has Taken Actions to Increase Training and Mentoring: 

According to EOIR, from September 2006[Footnote 45] through May 2008, 
its Office of the Chief Immigration Judge referred 14 immigration 
judges for additional or ameliorative training, of whom 6 were referred 
for additional legal training. EOIR officials noted that additional 
training has typically lasted a week and that many of the immigration 
judges referred for training were required to participate in peer 
observation at the training court, in addition to individual training 
and mentoring. The precise number of peer observation sessions varied, 
but EOIR said that, in general, the immigration judges observed one 
mentor multiple times or observed multiple immigration judges within 
the same immigration court over the course of the week, either in their 
own immigration court location or at a training court. According to 
EOIR officials, an attempt has been made to improve training for all 
immigration judges, and not just for those identified as needing 
ameliorative attention. EOIR officials said EOIR expanded its training 
for newly hired immigration judges in September 2006 by extending the 
time immigration judges are to observe hearings from 1 week to 4 weeks. 
In addition to the new immigration judge training program, EOIR also 
holds an annual immigration judge conference. This conference is a week-
long training that includes lectures and presentations. Although 
immigration judges generally attended this conference in person, it was 
canceled in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 and again in 2008 as a 
result of budget constraints. A virtual conference that included 
recorded presentations was offered in place of the in-person conference 
in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and EOIR officials told us in that a 
virtual conference, including one day devoted to asylum issues, was 
offered in August 2008. The virtual conference included interactive 
computer-based training addressing asylum issues before the immigration 
courts and a multimedia presentation emphasizing the importance and 
impact of immigration judge asylum decisions. According to EOIR, 
immigration judges' supervisors were instructed to organize time for 
each immigration judge to observe colleagues in immigration court prior 
to the virtual conference. EOIR officials stated that EOIR will assess 
the effectiveness of peer observation during the August training. 

EOIR reported it has also developed a mentor directory to take 
advantage of the pool of expertise among the immigration judges, 
providing a list of immigration judges with expertise willing to serve 
as mentors to their colleagues on specific areas of immigration law and 
procedure. The mentors are to be available for consultation at any 
time, and supervisors may use the directory to identify resources to 
help sharpen immigration judges' legal skills. The mentor directory was 
made available to all immigration judges on-line in April 2008 through 
the Immigration Judge Benchbook. 

BIA Streamlining Was Associated with a Reduction in BIA's Backlog and 
Fewer Outcomes Favorable to Asylum Seekers: 

The streamlining of BIA's administrative procedures was associated with 
a pronounced decrease in the overall backlog of appeals pending at the 
BIA, including asylum appeals, and in the number of BIA decisions 
favorable to asylum seekers.[Footnote 46] Pursuant to the BIA's March 
2002 streamlining changes in which cases involving asylum claims could, 
for the first time, be decided by a single BIA member and without a 
written opinion, there was a marked increase in the number of asylum 
decisions rendered by the BIA, coupled with a reduction in the average 
amount of time that asylum appeals were on the BIA docket. BIA 
decisions favorable to asylum applicants were more than 50 percent 
lower in the 4 years following the 2002 changes, a period during which 
BIA members made substantial use of the authority to affirm immigration 
judge decisions without writing an opinion (AWO). EOIR proposed 
regulations in 2008 allowing for more written opinions and expanding 
the criteria for referring appeals to three-member panels, but it is 
too soon to tell how these procedures will affect asylum appeals 
outcomes. 

BIA's Backlog of Cases Decreased after Streamlining: 

DOJ realized its objective of reducing the BIA's overall backlog of 
cases, including asylum cases, by streamlining BIA's procedures for 
handling immigration appeals. During each of fiscal years 1995 through 
2000, the annual number of cases completed at the BIA was generally 
lower than the number of cases received, driving up the appeals backlog 
to a peak of over 58,000 cases in fiscal year 2000 (see fig. 6). With 
the implementation of BIA's initial streamlining in late fiscal year 
2000--which applied to a number of categories of appeals other than 
asylum, withholding, or CAT--BIA's overall backlog of cases began to 
decrease. In fiscal year 2002, when DOJ authorized the inclusion of 
asylum, withholding, and CAT appeals in the category of cases subject 
to streamlining procedures and made single member review the primary 
mode of BIA decision-making, the overall BIA backlog decreased further 
and was at its lowest level in 12 years in fiscal year 2006, with 
approximately 26,100 pending appeals, before increasing slightly in 
fiscal year 2007 to about 27,700 pending appeals. 

Figure 6: Overall BIA Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of 
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year: 

This figure is a combination bar graph showing overall BIA receipts, 
completions, and pending appeals of immigration judge decisions, by 
fiscal year. The X axis represents the fiscal year of BIA decision, and 
the Y axis represents the number of appeals from IJ decisions. The bars 
represent receipts, completions, and pending. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1995; Receipts: 17,880; 
Completions: 10,693; 
Pending: 26,382. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1996; Receipts: 23,445; 
Completions: 14,530; 
Pending: 35,299. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1997; Receipts: 27,310; 
Completions: 19,956; 
Pending: 42,655. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Receipts: 26,351; 
Completions: 25,843; 
Pending: 43,201. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Receipts: 28,393; 
Completions: 21,307; 
Pending: 50,293. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Receipts: 26,603; 
Completions: 18,037; 
Pending: 58,859. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Receipts: 24,881; 
Completions: 27,184; 
Pending: 56,559. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Receipts: 33,347; 
Completions: 45,297; 
Pending: 44,611. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Receipts: 40,593; 
Completions: 46,555; 
Pending: 38,649. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Receipts: 40,654; 
Completions: 46,503; 
Pending: 32,800. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Receipts: 39,677; 
Completions: 43,005; 
Pending: 29,472. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Receipts: 34,720; 
Completions: 37,669; 
Pending: 26,523. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2007; Receipts: 32,658; 
Completions: 31,467; 
Pending: 27,716. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

For BIA appeals in cases involving asylum applications, the backlog of 
cases grew until fiscal year 2001, and then began to decrease beginning 
in fiscal year 2002, the year in which streamlining was extended to 
asylum, withholding, and CAT appeals. The backlog was at its lowest 
level in 13 years in fiscal year 2007, at about 18,700 pending appeals 
(see fig. 7). 

Figure 7: BIA Asylum Receipts, Completions, and Pending Appeals of 
Immigration Judge Decisions, by Fiscal Year: 

This figure is a combination bar graph showing BIA asylum receipts, 
completions, and pending appeals of immigration judge decisions, by 
fiscal year. The X axis represents fiscal year of BIA decision, and the 
Y axis represents the number of asylum appeals from IJ decisions. The 
bars represent asylum receipts, asylum completions, and asylum pending. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1995; Asylum receipts: 10,188; 
Asylum completions: 5,246; 
Asylum pending: 16,495. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1996; Asylum receipts: 13,888; 
Asylum completions: 7,566; 
Asylum pending: 22,817. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1997; Asylum receipts: 12,524; 
Asylum completions: 9,588; 
Asylum pending: 25,755. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Asylum receipts: 13,129; 
Asylum completions: 14,722; 
Asylum pending: 24,176. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Asylum receipts: 14,993; 
Asylum completions: 8,702; 
Asylum pending: 30,469. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Asylum receipts: 14,825; 
Asylum completions: 7,848; 
Asylum pending: 37,446. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Asylum receipts: 14,353; 
Asylum completions: 13,899; 
Asylum pending: 37,901. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Asylum receipts: 20,259; 
Asylum completions: 27,059; 
Asylum pending: 31,102. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Asylum receipts: 26,598; 
Asylum completions: 30,695; 
Asylum pending: 27,005. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Asylum receipts: 26,546; 
Asylum completions: 30,322; 
Asylum pending: 23,229. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Asylum receipts: 25,332; 
Asylum completions: 27,840; 
Asylum pending: 20,721. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Asylum receipts: 21,640; 
Asylum completions: 23,461; 
Asylum pending: 18,900. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2007; Asylum receipts: 19,516; 
Asylum completions: 19,758; 
Asylum pending: 18,660. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

Following the March 2002 streamlining, there was a pronounced increase 
in the annual number of BIA decisions involving asylum cases, and a 
decrease in the average amount of time taken to decide asylum cases on 
BIA's docket (see fig 8). The overall number of BIA asylum decisions 
was about 12,000 in fiscal year 2001, increased to a high of between 
about 22,000 and 23,000 in fiscal years 2002 through 2004, and 
decreased to about 15,000 in fiscal year 2006. From fiscal years 2000 
through 2006, the average number of days from filing the appeal to the 
decision's being rendered decreased each year, decreasing from about 
1,100 days in fiscal year 2000 to about 400 days in fiscal year 2006. 
These changes are understandable given that BIA's streamlining 
procedures--reducing the number of decision makers, in most cases from 
three to one, and reducing the requirements for documenting the 
rationale for the decision--could lead to expedited case processing. 

Figure 8: Number of BIA Asylum Decisions and Average Time from Filing 
of Appeal to Decision, by Fiscal Year of BIA Decision: 

This figure is a combination line and bar graph showing the number of 
BIA asylum decisions and average time from filing of appeal to 
decision, by fiscal year of BIA decision. The X axis represents the 
fiscal year of BIA decisions, the left Y axis represents the number, 
and the right Y axis represents the days. The bars represent the number 
of decisions, and the line represents the average time from appeal to 
decision. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1995; Number of decisions: 4695; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 668.9. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1996; Number of decisions: 6221; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 372. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1997; Number of decisions: 8017; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 458.9.

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Number of decisions: 12495; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 796.8. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Number of decisions: 7017; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 966.8. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Number of decisions: 5670; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 1092.9. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Number of decisions: 11713; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 971.6. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Number of decisions: 22846; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 951. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Number of decisions: 23050; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 774.2. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Number of decisions: 22103; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 443.6. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Number of decisions: 18408; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 427.9. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Number of decisions: 15408; 
Average time from appeal to decision: 417.1. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

BIA Decisions Favoring Asylum Applicants Decreased, and Decisions by 
Single BIA Members Were Less Favorable to Asylum Applicants than 
Decisions by Three-Member Panels: 

BIA Decisions Favoring Aliens Appealing Asylum Decisions Decreased 
Following the March 2002 Streamlining: 

BIA decisions favoring the alien in asylum appeals decreased following 
the 2002 streamlining. Although there were limitations in the data 
maintained by EOIR, we were able to derive general estimates of the 
change in outcomes for asylum applicants that were associated with the 
2002 streamlining by merging EOIR data on decisions made by immigration 
judges with EOIR data on the results of appeals of these decisions to 
the BIA.[Footnote 47] BIA decisions favoring the alien in asylum 
appeals--including granting asylum, dismissing an appeal by DHS of an 
immigration judge's grant of relief through asylum, or remanding the 
case to the immigration judge--decreased following the 2002 
streamlining, from 21 percent in the period from October 1, 1997, 
through March 14, 2002, to 10 percent in the period from March 15, 
2002, through September 30, 2006. In addition, the percentage of BIA 
decisions granting the alien relief in the form of voluntary departure 
from the United States also decreased following the 2002 streamlining, 
from 25 percent to 17 percent.[Footnote 48] BIA decisions that favored 
DHS (dismissing an applicant's appeal of an immigration judge's asylum 
denial) remained constant, at 27 percent in the periods before and 
after streamlining. Appeals by aliens and DHS represented 97 percent 
and 3 percent, respectively, of BIA's asylum appeals caseload from 
October 1997 to September 2006. BIA members used their authority to 
issue AWOs in 44 percent of the asylum cases they reviewed--35 percent 
without a grant of voluntary departure (with 98 percent of these 
resulting in removal orders)--and 9 percent resulting in grants of 
voluntary departure (see fig. 9). Overall, 78 percent of AWOs issued by 
the BIA after streamlining resulted in removal orders. 

Figure 9: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, before and after the March 
2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms: 

This figure is a combination bar graph showing BIA decisions in asylum 
appeals, before and after the March 2002 BIA streamlining reforms. The 
X axis represents the outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions, and the 
Y axis represents percent of all appeals' outcomes. The bars represent 
October 1, 1997 through March 14, 2002, and the time period of March 
15, 2002 through September 30, 2008. 

Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Favor alien; October 1, 1997 
through March 14, 2002: 21.06; March 15, 2002 through September 30, 
2008: 10.1. 

Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Favor DHS; October 1, 1997 
through March 14, 2002: 26.83; March 15, 2002 through September 30, 
2008: 26.71. 

Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: AWO without voluntary 
departure; October 1, 1997 through March 14, 2002: 0.13; March 15, 2002 
through September 30, 2008: 34.98. 

Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: AWO with voluntary departure; 
October 1, 1997 through March 14, 2002: 0.04; March 15, 2002 through 
September 30, 2008: 9.37. 

Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Voluntary departure; October 
1, 1997 through March 14, 2002: 24.54; March 15, 2002 through September 
30, 2008: 7.74. 

Outcomes of BIA asylum appeals decisions: Other; October 1, 1997 
through March 14, 2002: 27.41; March 15, 2002 through September 30, 
2008: 11.1. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: The category "other," encompasses BIA decision categories that 
were not readily coded as favoring one or the other appealing party, 
nor involved the BIA's AWO procedures or a grant of voluntary 
departure. It includes summary dismissals of appeals without briefs 
filed, grants of temporary protected status for certain nationals in 
specified time periods, cases where the BIA ruled that it did not have 
jurisdiction over the appeal, and other categories not clearly related 
to a decision on the merits of the appeal. See Appendix I for a 
detailed discussion of our coding decision rules. 

[End of figure] 

The large pre-versus post-2002 differences in BIA decisions, as 
illustrated in figure 9, mask some annual variation in outcomes that 
occurred during the period covered by our analysis. For example, (1) 
the level of use of AWOs without voluntary departure that occurred 
after the 2002 streamlining increased for 2 years, and then began to 
decrease in recent years; and (2) decisions favorable to DHS fluctuated 
from fiscal year 1998 until 2002, with a substantial decrease occurring 
between fiscal years 2000 and 2002. Decisions favorable to DHS then 
increased substantially in the following 4 years (see fig. 10). 

Figure 10: BIA Decisions in Asylum Appeals, by Fiscal Year of BIA 
Decision: 

This figure is a combination line graph showing BIA decisions in asylum 
appeals, by fiscal year of BIA decision. The X axis represents the 
fiscal year of BIA decision, and the Y axis represents the percent. The 
lines represent voluntary departure, favor alien, favor DHS, other, AWO 
without voluntary departure, and AWO with voluntary departure. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1998; Favor alien: 28.74; 
Favor DHS: 22.25; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 0; AWO with voluntary departure: 0; 
Voluntary departure: 38.69; 
Other: 10.33. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 1999; Favor alien: 19.09; 
Favor DHS: 23.27; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 0; AWO with voluntary departure: 0; 
Voluntary departure: 26.92; 
Other: 30.72. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2000; Favor alien: 24.91; 
Favor DHS: 38.22; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 0.04; AWO with voluntary departure: 0; 
Voluntary departure: 17.63; 
Other: 19.2. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2001; Favor alien: 16.01; 
Favor DHS: 24.46; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 0.25; AWO with voluntary departure: 
0.07; Voluntary departure: 14.11; 
Other: 45.09. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2002; Favor alien: 8.31; 
Favor DHS: 15.69; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 30.19; AWO with voluntary departure: 
15.29; Voluntary departure: 9.18; 
Other: 21.33. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2003; Favor alien: 11.05; 
Favor DHS: 17.65; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 41.97; AWO with voluntary departure: 
13.17; Voluntary departure: 6.34; 
Other: 9.83. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2004; Favor alien: 8.48; 
Favor DHS: 29.9; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 39.91; AWO with voluntary departure: 
5.32; Voluntary departure: 5.45; 
Other: 10.95. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2005; Favor alien: 10.63; 
Favor DHS: 37.82; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 27.24; AWO with voluntary departure: 
4.53; Voluntary departure: 10.88; 
Other: 8.9. 

Fiscal year of BIA decision: 2006; Favor alien: 14.25; 
Favor DHS: 44.7; 
AWO without voluntary departure: 20.4; AWO with voluntary departure: 
2.43; Voluntary departure: 11.42; 
Other: 6.8. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

The decrease in the percentage of BIA asylum decisions favorable to the 
alien following the March 2002 streamlining occurred in both 
affirmative and defensive asylum cases and was significantly greater 
for those who had applied defensively. Among applicants who had applied 
for asylum affirmatively, the decreases were significantly larger when 
the applicant was represented at the BIA and when the applicant had 
dependents.[Footnote 49] Among the group of appellants who had applied 
for asylum defensively, those without representation experienced 
significantly larger declines in favorable outcomes, as did those who 
were not detained. Declines did not differ significantly between 
defensive applicants who had dependents and those who did not (see 
table 3.)[Footnote 50] 

Table 3: BIA Decisions Favoring Asylum Applicants, before and after 
March 2002 BIA Streamlining Reforms, by Claimant Characteristics: 

Claimant characteristic: All; Percent (of total number) of BIA 
decisions favoring affirmative asylum applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 
10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 19; (11,667); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 11; (37,957); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 24; (10,063); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/ 15/02 - 9/30/06: 8; (25,385). 

Claimant characteristic: Representation; Yes; 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 23; (7,629); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 13; (29,954); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 26; (7,280); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 9; (19,671). 

Claimant characteristic: Representation; No; 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 10; (4,038); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 7; (8,003); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 19; (2,783); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 5; (5,714). 

Claimant characteristic: Dependents; Yes; 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 24; (956); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 10; (5,689); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 29; (402); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 10; (1,048). 

Claimant characteristic: Dependents; No; 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 18; (10,711); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 12; (32,268); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 24; (9,661); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 8; (24,337). 

Claimant characteristic: Currently detained; Yes; 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 8; (124); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 11; (175); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Pre- Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 13; (2,491); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Post- Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 7; (3,271). 

Claimant characteristic: Currently detained; No; 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 19; (11,543); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring affirmative asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 11; (37,782); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Pre-Streamlining: 10/1/97 - 3/14/02: 28; (7,572); 
Percent (of total number) of BIA decisions favoring defensive asylum 
applicants: Post-Streamlining: 3/15/02 - 9/30/06: 8; (22,114). 

Source: GAO Analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: Numbers in the table are the total numbers of applicants on which 
the percentages are based. 

[End of table] 

Single Member BIA Decisions Were Associated with Less Favorable 
Outcomes for Asylum Applicants than Three-Member Panel Decisions: 

Of all BIA decisions in asylum appeals from fiscal years 2004 through 
2006, 92 percent of decisions were made by single BIA members, of which 
7 percent of these favored the alien.[Footnote 51] (See table 4.) In 
contrast, 8 percent of decisions were made by panels, with 52 percent 
of these decisions favoring the alien. Although the percent of appeals 
favoring the alien increased significantly over this time period both 
for single-member decisions and three-member panel decisions, the 
increase in favorable decisions made by three-member panels was 
significantly greater and doubled during that period. 

Table 4: BIA Asylum Decisions Favoring Alien Made by Three-Member 
Panels versus Single Members, Post 2002 Streamlining: 

Type of decision: Three-member panel; Fiscal year 2004: Percentage 
(number) of total decisions made: 9; (1,326); 
Fiscal year 2004: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien: 
37; (497); 
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 7; 
(793); 
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien: 
54; (432); 
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 8; 
(804); 
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien: 
74; (591); 
Fiscal years 2004-2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 8; 
(2,923); 
Fiscal years 2004-2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to 
alien: 52; (1,520). 

Type of decision: Single member; Fiscal year 2004: Percentage (number) 
of total decisions made: 91; (13,291); 
Fiscal year 2004: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien: 
6; (742); 
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 93; 
(10,055); 
Fiscal year 2005: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien: 
7; (721); 
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 92; 
(9,042); 
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to alien: 
9; (812); 
Fiscal years 2004- 2006: Percentage (number) of total decisions made: 
92; (32,388); 
Fiscal years 2004-2006: Percentage (number) of decisions favorable to 
alien: 7; (2,275). 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of table] 

EOIR Has Been Making Additional Changes to the BIA Adjudication Process 
as a Result of the Attorney General's Review: 

Following a 2006 review of the immigration courts and the BIA, the 
Attorney General directed EOIR to undertake regulatory changes to the 
streamlining rules with the intent of improving BIA adjudicatory 
procedures. In June 2008, EOIR published proposed regulations for 
comment in the Federal Register.[Footnote 52] The regulations are 
intended to codify the discretion that BIA members have in deciding 
whether to write opinions or issue AWOs. BIA officials told us that the 
BIA believed it always had this discretion under the 2002 streamlining 
regulations and had already begun to issue more written opinions. The 
regulations also propose to expand the criteria for the referral of 
appeals to three-member panels, allowing a single BIA member to refer a 
case to a three-member panel when the case presents a particularly 
complex, novel, or unusual legal or factual issue. 

Additionally, following the Attorney General's review, EOIR published 
an interim rule in December 2006 increasing the size of the BIA by 4 
members from the 11 members authorized by the 2002 streamlining to 15 
members, and expanding the list of persons eligible to serve as 
temporary BIA members.[Footnote 53] The rule became final in June 
2008.[Footnote 54] One of DOJ's stated reasons for the increase was to 
put the BIA in the best position to implement the Attorney General's 
directives encouraging the increased use of one-member written opinions 
and three-member panel decisions. Between December 2006 and May 2008, 
the number of permanent members did not exceed nine members, although 
EOIR stated that the BIA has used between two and five temporary 
members at any one time to help manage the caseload on a temporary 
basis. In May 2008, the BIA had 8 members, and the Attorney General 
appointed 5 new members, bringing the total number to 13. It is too 
soon to tell how these regulatory changes might affect outcomes for 
asylum appellants. 

Data Limitations Precluded Determining the Effects of the 1-Year Rule 
and the Resources Expended Adjudicating It: 

Data limitations prevented us from determining the effects of the 1- 
year rule and the resources spent adjudicating it. EOIR does not 
collect data that would enable us to determine the effects of the 1- 
year rule on the filing of fraudulent asylum applications or on 
immigration judge decisions to deny asylum because of it. DHS and DOJ 
do not maintain records on how much time asylum officers, immigration 
judges, and DHS attorneys spend addressing issues related to the rule. 

Data Were Not Available to Assess the Effects of the 1-Year Rule on 
Fraudulent Applications and Denials: 

We could not determine the effects of the 1-year rule on the filing of 
fraudulent asylum applications or on immigration judge decisions to 
deny asylum because data were not available to conduct such analyses. 
Currently, EOIR does not collect data related to the effect of the 1- 
year rule on asylum decisions and applicants because, according to 
agency officials, EOIR's mission of fair and prompt adjudication of 
immigration proceedings has not required its staff to track data on the 
legal basis for the decisions. Therefore, it remains unknown what 
impact the 1 year filing deadline may have had on asylum fraud or the 
extent to which this deadline may have prevented asylum seekers with a 
well-founded fear of persecution from being granted asylum. 

It is difficult to assess the effect of the 1-year rule on reducing 
fraud because good measures of deterring fraudulent behavior are not 
available, and the presence of fraud is generally difficult to identify 
and prove. In contrast, it was difficult to assess the effect of the 1- 
year rule on asylum denials because EOIR does not maintain automated 
data on the reasons underlying immigration judge decisions. DHS does 
maintain data on whether the affirmative asylum cases it decides are 
referred to immigration court because of the 1-year rule. However, the 
data do not shed light on whether the 1-year rule was the only reason 
for referring a case to immigration court or whether it was one of 
several possible reasons. 

DHS data show that from fiscal years 1999 through 2006, asylum officers 
referred about 64,000 cases to immigration court based at least in part 
on the 1-year rule. During this period, cases referred by asylum 
officers to immigration court based on the 1-year rule, as a percent of 
total cases interviewed and referred by asylum officers, peaked in 
fiscal years 2001 through 2003 at around 43 to 45 percent, as shown in 
table 5. 

Table 5: Asylum Cases Referred at Least in Part on the 1-Year Rule by 
DHS Asylum Officers to Immigration Judges, by Fiscal Year: 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 37,896; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 19,422; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 3,876; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
20. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 46,340; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 19,577; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 6,032; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
31. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 62,871; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 25,126; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 11,188; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
45. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 64,644; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 31,789; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 13,699; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
43. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 46,945; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 26,185; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 11,131; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
43. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 34,170; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 19,762; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 7,159; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
36. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 32,899; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 18,835; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 6,307; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
33. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 36,510; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 19,265; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 4,532; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
24. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
Asylum cases filed with DHS: 362,275; Total interviewed cases referred 
to immigration judge: 179,961; Cases referred on 1-year rule: 63,924; 1-
year rule referrals as percentage of all interviewed cases referred: 
36. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS Asylum Office data. 

[End of table] 

However, the total number of cases referred by asylum officers to 
immigration judges constitutes only a portion of all the asylum cases 
in which the 1-year rule was adjudicated in the immigration courts. In 
the absence of EOIR data, our 2007 survey asked immigration judges to 
estimate the frequency and outcomes of their asylum cases that involved 
the 1-year rule during the past year. Nearly all (98 percent) of the 
respondents said the 1-year issue (questions about the date of entry or 
eligibility for exceptions to the rule) had to be resolved in at least 
some of the asylum cases they adjudicated, including 55 percent who 
said the rule was an issue in about one-half or more of their cases. 
Further, 85 percent of the respondents said they denied asylum in some 
of the cases they had heard in the past year (including 12 percent who 
said they had denied asylum in about one-half or more of their cases) 
because they found that the applicant was ineligible because of the 1- 
year rule. 

Data Were Not Available to Determine the Amount of Resources Expended 
In Adjudicating the 1-Year Rule: 

We could not determine the amount of resources spent adjudicating 
asylum cases related to the 1-year rule because DHS and DOJ do not 
maintain records on how much time asylum officers, immigration judges, 
and DHS attorneys spend addressing issues related to the rule. We asked 
immigration judges in our 2007 nationwide survey to provide estimates 
of the average amount of time they spent adjudicating the 1-year rule, 
and these ranged from less than 30 minutes to more than 2 hours. The 
majority of survey respondents (79 percent) said that adjudicating the 
rule took less than an hour; 15 percent, between 1 hour and less than 2 
hours; 2.5 percent, 2 hours or more. 

Immigrant advocates have argued that it is important to have data on 
how many applicants are denied asylum based on the 1-year rule because 
such applicants may have a well-founded fear of persecution, as do 
asylees, but they must meet a higher standard to remain in the United 
States; that is, to be granted a "withholding from removal."[Footnote 
55] Withholding from removal is a less favorable outcome than a grant 
of asylum because it confers fewer immigration benefits, including the 
inability to bring a spouse and minor children to the United States for 
family reunification. EOIR has stated that gathering historical data on 
the impact of the 1-year rule on applicants and their dependents would 
present difficulties for the agency because, among other things, (1) 
gathering this data would be prohibitively resource intensive to 
retrieve, transcribe, and review audio recordings of immigration 
hearings, which are typically transcribed only if the case is appealed 
to the BIA and (2) such an effort may not produce the desired result 
because immigration judges often address the merits of asylum cases in 
alternative findings so that the determinative basis for the ultimate 
denial is unclear. EOIR officials stated that they believed that of 
those cases where the 1-year rule is a factor in the immigration 
judge's denial of asylum, in most cases it is only one reason for 
denial. EOIR stated that gathering prospective data on the impact of 
the 1-year rule would involve considerable cost in that gathering this 
data would require changes in EOIR's administrative processing and data 
tracking systems. 

If the Congress believes it is important for EOIR to begin collecting 
data on the impact of the 1-year rule on asylum decisions, the 
applicants, and their dependents, it would need to direct EOIR to 
develop a cost effective method for carrying this effort out. For such 
data collection activities to result in useful data, Congress would 
have to direct EOIR to develop mechanisms to directly capture the key 
elements underlying an immigration judge's decision, so that analysts 
would be able to identify those instances in which the 1-year rule was 
the determinative basis in the decision. 

Conclusions: 

We found large differences in asylum decisions among immigration 
judges. Our analysis used more comprehensive statistical procedures, 
examined a longer period of time, and had data on more potential 
explanatory factors than the analyses reported in EOIR's grant rate 
studies. Because data were not available on the facts, evidence, and 
testimony presented in each asylum case, nor on immigration judges' 
rationale for deciding whether to grant or deny a case, we could not 
measure the effect of case merits on case outcomes. However, the size 
of the disparities in asylum grant rates creates a perception of 
unfairness in the asylum adjudication process within the immigration 
court system. 

We commend EOIR for taking actions to collect information on the 
variation of asylum outcomes across immigration judges and to attempt 
to integrate that information into its oversight of immigration judges. 
However, we believe that EOIR's grant rate studies have weaknesses that 
limit their ability to identify immigration judges who have unusually 
high or low rates in the granting of asylum. Although EOIR has 
attempted to take into account a few of the factors that may be 
associated with variation in asylum grant rates among immigration 
judges, we believe that the statistical methods we applied to EOIR's 
data provide a more complete, accurate, and useful picture of asylum 
rulings for the immigration judges included in our analysis. Without 
statistically controlling for factors that could affect asylum 
decisions, including variations in the types of cases immigration 
judges adjudicate, some of the immigration judges who EOIR's grant rate 
studies determined to be unusually high granters and deniers of asylum 
may actually be less extreme than they appear, while others who do not 
appear to be outliers may actually be more extreme after statistical 
adjustment. Consequently, some immigration judges identified as needing 
supervisory assistance and attention when EOIR uses its grant rate 
results in combination with other performance indicators may sometimes 
not be the same individuals who are identified once certain factors 
associated with asylum decisions are taken into account. We recognize 
that decisions about whether and which immigration judges' skills need 
improvement should not depend entirely on statistical disparities in 
asylum decisions, as there are other indicators (including high remand 
and reversal rates) that should be taken into account in making such 
decisions. Nevertheless, we believe that the information we produced, 
in conjunction with other indicators of immigration judge performance 
that EOIR is collecting and considers to be important, would put EOIR 
in a better position to identify immigration judges who would benefit 
from supervisory attention and assistance. 

While the information we produced through our analyses can be useful to 
EOIR for a limited amount of time, it represents an analysis of 
immigration judges' decisions during a 12 ½ year period ending in April 
2007. As time goes on, there will be turnover in immigration judges, 
changes in country conditions that will prompt changes in the 
composition of applicants seeking asylum in this country, and possibly 
other unanticipated changes that could affect variability in asylum 
outcomes. Periodic updates using the types of multivariate analyses 
that we did would provide EOIR with a more complete, accurate, and 
useful picture of immigration judge decision making over time than the 
current approach. These analyses would also facilitate EOIR's goal of 
using data on grants and denials, in combination with other information 
about immigration judges, to identify those whose skills may need to be 
improved through training or other means. We recognize that EOIR 
currently does not have the expertise or the budget to perform 
sophisticated statistical analyses and that acquiring the expertise 
would involve some cost. We believe that such an effort should be 
considered, however, because ensuring both the reality and perception 
of fairness in the asylum system is a worthwhile goal. 

With regard to supervision, EOIR has made efforts to improve oversight 
and management of the immigration courts by redeploying some ACIJs from 
headquarters to field locations. However, EOIR has not determined how 
many ACIJs it needs to effectively supervise immigration judges, and it 
has not provided ACIJs with guidance on how to carry out their 
supervisory role. We believe that building blocks of an effective 
management system involve allocating the right number of resources and 
delineating the responsibilities of individuals tasked with carrying 
out supervisory functions. Doing so would put EOIR in a better position 
to monitor immigration judge performance and take appropriate action to 
correct or prevent immigration judge performance issues that may arise. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To address disparities in asylum outcomes that may be unwarranted and 
to facilitate EOIR's goal of identifying immigration judges who may 
benefit from supplemental efforts to improve their performance, we 
recommend that EOIR's Chief Immigration Judge take the following two 
actions: 

* Utilize the information from our multivariate statistical analyses to 
identify which immigration judges remained many times more or less 
likely to grant asylum than others, after accounting for claimant and 
immigration judge characteristics. 

* Identify and examine cost-effective options (e.g., developing an in- 
house capability or hiring a private contractor) for acquiring the 
expertise needed to perform periodic multivariate statistical analyses 
of immigration judges' asylum decisions. 

In addition, to more fully respond to the Attorney General's directive 
to strengthen management and oversight of immigration courts, we 
recommend that EOIR's Chief Immigration Judge: 

* develop a plan for supervisory immigration judges, to include an 
assessment of the resources and guidance needed to ensure that 
immigration judges receive effective supervision. 

Agency Comments: 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ and DHS. DOJ 
and DHS did not provide official written comments to include in our 
report. However, on September 11, 2008, EOIR's liaison stated that EOIR 
agreed with our recommendations. EOIR also provided technical comments, 
which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate. In an email 
received on September 19, 2008, DHS's liaison stated that DHS had no 
comments on the report. 

We are sending copies of this report to the interested congressional 
committees, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. We will also provide copies to others on request. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. For further 
information about this report, please contact Richard M. Stana, 
Director, GAO Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-8777 
or at stanar@gao.gov. GAO staff members who were major contributors to 
this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our reporting objectives were to (1) identify what factors affected the 
variability in asylum outcomes in immigration courts; (2) identify what 
actions DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has taken 
to assist applicants in obtaining legal representation and immigration 
judges in rendering asylum decisions, and how, if at all, these actions 
could be improved; (3) determine what changes in asylum backlogs and 
outcomes occurred following the streamlining of appeals procedures at 
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and (4) identify what 
information existed on the effects of the 1-year rule on reducing 
fraudulent asylum applications and preventing applicants from being 
granted asylum and what resources have been expended in adjudicating 
it. 

To address the first and third objectives, we obtained and analyzed 
over 12 years of EOIR data on asylum outcomes in the immigration courts 
and at the BIA. Our methods for obtaining and analyzing these data are 
described below. Prior to developing and analyzing the EOIR data, we 
assessed the reliability of each data source and used only the data 
that we found to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 
report. The actions we took to reach this conclusion are described in 
detail below. 

To address our fourth objective, we also surveyed from May through July 
2007 the 207 immigration judges who had been in their positions since 
at least September 30, 2006, and elicited responses from them regarding 
the challenges they faced in adjudicating the 1-year rule. In addition, 
we obtained from DHS data on the number of applicants referred to 
immigration court from the Asylum Division in fiscal years 1999 through 
2007, and the percentage of referrals for which the 1-year rule was the 
stated reason for referral. 

To address all four of our objectives, we also analyzed research on 
factors affecting asylum outcomes; reviewed DOJ documents covering 
asylum policies and procedures; interviewed agency officials at 
headquarters and in the field; and visited three of the four largest 
immigration courts in the country, ranked in terms of asylum decisions 
in fiscal year 2006--New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco--and 
two smaller immigration courts handling large percentages of cases of 
aliens in detention--Varick Street in New York City, and San Pedro, 
Calif.--where we spoke with immigration judges, court administrators, 
attorneys representing asylum applicants and for DHS, and 
representatives of immigrant advocacy groups. We also observed removal 
hearings. Because we selected nonprobablity samples of immigration 
courts and stakeholders associated with these immigration courts, the 
information we obtained at these locations may not be generalized 
either within the immigration courts or to all immigration courts 
nationwide. However, the information we obtained at these locations 
provided us with a perspective on circumstances associated with asylum 
proceedings. 

Factors Affecting Variability in Asylum Outcomes in Immigration Court: 

Analysis of Data on Immigration Judge Decisions: 

We used logistic regression multivariate statistical models to examine 
all decisions rendered by immigration judges from October 1, 1994, 
through April 30, 2007, that involved asylum seekers from the 20 
countries that produced the most asylum cases and the 19 immigration 
courts that handled the largest numbers of asylum cases. Each of the 20 
countries and 19 immigration courts contributed a minimum of 800 
affirmative and 800 defensive asylum cases to our analyses. The results 
of our analysis cannot be generalized to asylum seekers from other 
countries or to other immigration courts. Our statistical models are 
described in more detail in appendixes II and III. 

To compile the data for analysis, we (1) obtained from EOIR, records of 
all immigration court proceedings that occurred during the period 
covered by the study, (2) selected those records where the immigration 
judge made the first decision on the asylum application (eliminating 
decisions rendered following appeals), (3) selected only the records 
for "lead" applicants (eliminating duplicate decisions for a spouse and 
dependent children), and (4) selected the immigration courts and 
countries that contributed a minimum of 800 cases. We then (5) obtained 
biographical information from EOIR on those immigration judges who had 
served during the time period of the study, and (6) merged these data 
with the EOIR proceedings data to produce a combined dataset for 
analysis that contained proceedings records with information on the 
characteristics of the applicants, the immigration judges, the 
immigration courts, and the decision rendered on the applicants' asylum 
applications. 

Because we were interested in those proceedings in which the 
immigration judge made an asylum decision without any review or 
direction from the BIA, we limited our analysis data set to only those 
proceedings with records that included the first decision on the merits 
of the asylum case made by an immigration judge. 

Data on Immigration Judge Characteristics: 

EOIR provided us biographical information, including prior employment 
history and prior immigration court assignments, for 284 of the 295 
immigration judges who had made asylum decisions during the period of 
our study. We obtained additional biographical information on four 
immigration judges by conducting searches on the Internet and confirmed 
the accuracy of this additional information with EOIR. We obtained data 
on immigration judges' race/ethnicity, gender, age, and veteran status 
from the Office of Personnel Management's database on federal civilian 
personnel, the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). Table 6 below lists 
the variables used in our analysis and the source of the data. 

Table 6: Variables Used in GAO Analyses of Factors Affecting Asylum 
Outcomes: 

Variable: Asylum decision; 
Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Immigration court in which the asylum decision was made; Data 
source: EOIR. 

Variable: Immigration judge (name and code); Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Nationality of asylum seeker; Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Asylum case type; 
* Affirmative (filed with Asylum Office); 
* Defensive (filed at immigration court); Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Representation; 
* Represented by counsel recognized to practice in immigration court; 
* Not represented; 
Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Dependents; 
* Has one or more dependents; 
* Has no dependents; 
Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Time period during which the case was adjudicated; 1. 10/1/ 
1994 - 3/31/1997; 
2. 4/1/1997 - 9/10/2001; 
3. 9/11/2001 - 4/30/2007; 
Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Detention status (defensive cases, only); 
* Currently or previously detained; 
* Never detained; 
Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Application filed within 1 year of entry; 
* Yes; 
* No; 
* Date of initial application or date of entry missing in EOIR data; 
Data source: EOIR. 

Variable: Gender of immigration judge; 
* Case adjudicated by male immigration judge; 
* Case adjudicated by female immigration judge; Data source: CPDF. 

Variable: Age of immigration judge at the time of adjudication; 
* Case adjudicated by immigration judge 50 years-old or older; 
* Case adjudicated by immigration judge less than 50 years-old; Data 
source: CPDF. 

Variable: Race/ethnicity of immigration judge; 
* Case adjudicated by white, nonHispanic immigration judge; 
* Case adjudicated by all other immigration judges; Data source: CPDF. 

Variable: Immigration judge has prior government-related immigration 
experience; 
* Yes; 
* No; 
Data source: EOIR biographies. 

Variable: Immigration judge has prior experience doing immigration work 
for a nonprofit organization; 
* Yes; 
* No; 
Data source: EOIR biographies. 

Variable: Length of service as an immigration judge at time of 
adjudication; 
* 3.49 years or less; 
* 3.5 - 9.9 years; 
* 10 years or more; 
Data source: EOIR and CPDF. 

Variable: Party of the administration under which the immigration judge 
was appointed; 
* Democratic; 
* Republican; 
Data source: CPDF. 

Variable: Veteran status; 
* Veteran preference; 
* No veteran preference; 
Data source: CPDF. 

Variable: Immigration judge caseload (number of decisions rendered in 
all types of cases in the 90 days preceding case adjudication); 
* Cases decided by immigration judges with a caseload of < 30 cases; 
* Cases decided by immigration judges with a caseload of 30-64 cases; 
* Cases decided by immigration judges with a caseload of more than 64 
cases; Data source: EOIR. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR and CPDF data. 

[End of table] 

Data Analysis: 

The likelihood of a grant of asylum was the dependent variable in most 
of our analyses. To measure the effect of factors that could explain 
the variability in asylum outcomes, we modeled the effect of claimant, 
immigration judge, and immigration court characteristics on case 
outcome. We conducted separate analyses for affirmative and defensive 
cases in our sample to control for characteristics shared by cases in 
each of those groups that could affect case outcomes, such as whether 
the asylum application had already been reviewed by an asylum officer. 
Data limitations prevented us from controlling for factors other than 
those listed in table 6 that could have contributed to variability in 
case outcomes. The models we used are described in more detail in 
appendixes II and III. 

Reliability of the Immigration Court and Immigration Judge Data: 

Prior to developing our database, we assessed the reliability of the 
EOIR data and the immigration judges' biographical data. To assess the 
reliability of the EOIR data, we (1) performed electronic testing for 
obvious errors in accuracy and completeness; (2) analyzed related 
documentation, including EOIR's Automated Nationwide System for 
Immigration Review (ANSIR) Field User Manual, and ANSIR Court 
Administrators Handbook, a 2002 KPMG study of the reliability of 
selected EOIR fields,[Footnote 56] and published research reports that 
made use of the EOIR data;[Footnote 57] and (3) worked with agency 
officials to identify any data problems. When we found apparent 
discrepancies (such as fields containing what appeared to be erroneous 
data), we brought them to the agency's attention and worked with agency 
officials and data experts to understand the data. We assessed the 
reliability of the immigration judge biographical data by checking a 
selection of fields in our database against information contained in 
the CPDF. Where direct comparison of the data was not possible, we 
brought data that appeared to be erroneous to EOIR's attention, and 
updated our records where appropriate. We determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. 

Agency Interviews and Site Visits: 

To gain a better understanding of factors affecting asylum 
adjudications and the reliability and validity of EOIR data on asylum 
adjudications, we interviewed EOIR headquarters officials responsible 
for overseeing the immigration courts, including the Chief Immigration 
Judge and Deputy Chief Immigration Judges; and the Assistant Director 
of EOIR's Office of Planning, Analysis and Technology, which is 
responsible for EOIR's information technology, program evaluation, 
statistical analysis, and reporting activities. 

To obtain an overview of and perspectives on the asylum process, we 
visited five immigration courts in three cities--Los Angeles and San 
Pedro in Los Angeles, Calif; New York City and Varick Street in New 
York, NY; and San Francisco, Calif. These immigration courts handled 43 
percent of all asylum cases decided in fiscal year 2006, and consisted 
of two immigration courts that handled large percentages of detained 
cases (San Pedro and Varick Street), and three immigration courts that 
handled primarily non-detained cases (Los Angeles, New York City, and 
San Francisco). In each immigration court, we observed immigration 
proceedings, which included initial master calendar and merit hearings 
on asylum cases. We conducted semi-structured interviews with the ACIJ 
with responsibility for the immigration courts we visited. In addition, 
we interviewed a total of 22 immigration judges representing a range of 
grant rates in the five immigration courts. To further our 
understanding, including how cases are allocated to immigration judges 
and how data on immigration proceedings are recorded in EOIR's case 
management system, we interviewed the court administrator of each of 
the five immigration courts we visited.[Footnote 58] In the three 
cities, we also interviewed (1) seven ICE Assistant Chief Counsels 
(known as ICE trial attorneys) with varying levels of experience 
prosecuting asylum cases in the five immigration courts. We also 
interviewed the Deputy Chief Counsels in the Los Angeles, New York, and 
San Francisco immigration courts; (2) six members of the private bar 
who represented asylum applicants in immigration court proceedings; and 
(3) groups of immigration advocates and pro bono providers, totaling 25 
participants across the three cities. Because we selected 
nonprobability samples of immigration courts and stakeholders 
associated with these courts, the information we obtained at these 
locations may not be generalized either within immigration courts or to 
all immigration courts nationwide. However, the information we obtained 
at these locations provided us with a perspective on circumstances 
associated with asylum proceedings. 

EOIR Actions to Assist Applicants and Immigration Judges: 

To identify what actions EOIR has taken to assist applicants and 
immigration judges in the asylum process and how, if at all, these 
actions could be improved, we reviewed the Attorney General's 2006 
directives to institute reforms in the immigration courts and BIA, and 
obtained information from EOIR regarding its implementation of the 
directives. Regarding initiatives designed to assist applicants, we 
reviewed the Vera Institute of Justice's evaluation of EOIR's Legal 
Orientation Program[Footnote 59] and the BIA's evaluation of its pro 
bono program[Footnote 60] as well as the Office of Chief Immigration 
Judge's "Guidelines for Facilitating Pro Bono Legal Services."[Footnote 
61] Regarding actions to assist immigration judges in adjudicating 
asylum cases, we reviewed EOIR's Operating Policy and Procedure 
Memorandums on Asylum Request Processing, and Immigration Judges 
Decisions and Immigration Judge Orders, among others; training 
materials for new immigration judges, including the agenda and 
materials from EOIR's 2007 annual Immigration Judges Training 
conference; the Immigration Judge Benchbook, and the legal examination 
administered to new immigration judges. We also interviewed EOIR's ACIJ 
for Conduct and Professionalism and ACIJ for Training as well as the 
coordinator for EOIR's Legal Orientation and Pro Bono Program, 
regarding the implementation of the Attorney General's 2006 directives. 
To obtain information on EOIR's studies of immigration judge grant 
rates, we interviewed knowledgeable EOIR officials, and obtained 
documentation on the data queries EOIR conducted to determine the grant 
rates. 

Did the Asylum Backlog and Asylum Outcomes Change Following BIA 
Streamlining? 

Analysis of Changes in the BIA Backlog: 

To examine what changes in asylum backlogs and outcomes occurred at the 
BIA following the streamlining changes implemented in March 
2002,[Footnote 62] we (1) obtained from EOIR records of all appeals of 
immigration judge decisions received or completed between October 1, 
1994, and September 30, 2007,[Footnote 63] and (3) selected only those 
records pertaining to lead applicants. For each fiscal year from 1995 
through 2007, we computed the "pending caseload" as the number of 
appeals received during the current fiscal year or any prior fiscal 
year that had not been completed by the end of the current fiscal year. 
We repeated this analysis for those appeals involving aliens who had 
filed an asylum application in immigration court. 

Analysis of Changes in Outcomes for Asylum Applicants: 

To determine if the proportion of decisions favorable to the asylum 
applicant changed following the March 2002 streamlining, we merged the 
BIA appeals records with the immigration proceedings records compiled 
for objective 1 and conducted a series of descriptive analyses 
comparing the outcomes of BIA decisions before and after the 
streamlined procedures took effect. 

For our analysis of appeals outcomes, we limited our analysis data set 
to appeals (1) pertaining to lead applicants who had filed an asylum 
application in immigration court and (2) involving immigration judge 
decisions in removal, deportation, and exclusion hearings (what the BIA 
refers to as "Case Appeals") rather than other kinds of appeals arising 
from immigration judge proceedings.[Footnote 64] These appeals 
accounted for 58 percent of all decisions stemming from appeals of 
immigration judge proceedings during fiscal year 2007. We matched the 
resulting set of BIA records with the database of immigration judge 
asylum decisions developed for objective 1. If more than one BIA case 
appeal record was associated with a single immigration judge decision, 
we selected the case appeal that occurred first in order to eliminate 
BIA decisions that resulted from a remand order from the U.S. courts of 
appeals. 

We examined BIA decisions for fiscal years 1998 through 2006. We chose 
this time period because the starting point for our immigration judge 
data was October 1994, and a BIA appeal could take an average of 1 to 2 
years to complete. We did not examine BIA decisions from fiscal year 
2007 because we did not have immigration judge data for the full fiscal 
year. 

To examine asylum appeals that BIA decided on the merits of the case, 
we analyzed only those cases where the appeal had been filed in a 
timely fashion, within 30 days of the decision rendered by the 
immigration judge. We selected only cases that involved applicants who 
had filed for asylum, rather than other forms of relief, to help ensure 
that the immigration judge's asylum decision was likely a central focus 
of the appeal. 

In order to correctly categorize whether the BIA decision favored the 
alien or DHS, we had numerous meetings with EOIR officials and data 
specialists regarding the meaning of EOIR's codes for decisions 
rendered by the BIA. EOIR stated that its data system did not capture 
the specific issue on appeal to the BIA, and thus it would be difficult 
to determine whether some BIA decisions favored the alien or the DHS 
without examining the actual record of appeal. In other cases, 
according to EOIR, the decision could be identified as favoring the 
alien or DHS, if the decision field were examined simultaneously with 
other data elements, including the party that had filed the appeal and 
the decision of the immigration judge on the asylum application. In 
those cases where it was not possible to determine from the EOIR data 
if the decision favored the alien or DHS, we coded the BIA decision as 
neither favoring the alien nor favoring DHS (such as in the case of an 
Affirmance without Opinion without a grant of Voluntary Departure). In 
those cases, we looked further to determine whether a formal order of 
removal had been entered by the BIA. Our coding scheme is detailed in 
table 7, below. 

Table 7: Coding Scheme for BIA Decision Outcomes: 

BIA decision code: Background check remand; Which party filed appeal: 
Alien; Immigration judge asylum decision: Deny WH, CAT (persecution 
decision is deny); GAO outcome code: Favor alien. 

BIA decision code: Background check remand; Which party filed appeal: 
DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant; GAO outcome code: Favor 
alien. 

BIA decision code: Remand; 
Which party filed appeal: Alien; Immigration judge asylum decision: 
Deny; GAO outcome code: Favor Alien. 

BIA decision code: Coercive Population Control grant; deferred enforced 
departure; termination; 
Which party filed appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum 
decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome code: Favor alien. 

BIA decision code: Dismissal; Which party filed appeal: DHS; 
Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant; GAO outcome code: Favor 
alien. 

BIA decision code: Dismissal; Which party filed appeal: Alien; 
Immigration judge asylum decision: Deny; GAO outcome code: Favor DHS. 

BIA decision code: Summary dismissal for "other" reason; Which party 
filed appeal: Alien; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny; 
GAO outcome code: Favor DHS. 

BIA decision code: Dismissal, Matter of Soriano; Which party filed 
appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny; 
GAO outcome code: Favor DHS. 

BIA decision code: Summary affirmance; Which party filed appeal: Alien 
or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome 
code: Affirmance without Opinion (AWO) with no voluntary departure. 

BIA decision code: Summary affirmance, voluntary departure; Which party 
filed appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or 
deny; GAO outcome code: Affirmance without Opinion (AWO) with voluntary 
departure granted. 

BIA decision code: Voluntary departure; Which party filed appeal: Alien 
or DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome 
code: Voluntary departure (not including those cases, above, where AWO 
was issued along with a grant of voluntary departure). 

BIA decision code: Remand; 
Which party filed appeal: DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: 
Grant; GAO outcome code: Other. 

BIA decision code: Sustain appeal; summary dismissal (no brief filed, 
inadequate reason on appeal) no jurisdiction; Temporary Protected 
Status;; withdrawal of appeal; 
Other; 
Which party filed appeal: Alien or DHS; Immigration judge asylum 
decision: Grant or deny; GAO outcome code: Other. 

BIA decision code: Summary dismissal for "other" reason; Which party 
filed appeal: DHS; Immigration judge asylum decision: Grant or deny; 
GAO outcome code: Other. 

Source: GAO Analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of table] 

Reliability of Data on BIA Appeals: 

We assessed the reliability of the EOIR's data on BIA asylum appeals 
decisions by (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in 
accuracy and completeness; (2) analyzing related documentation, 
including a 2002 KPMG study of the reliability of selected EOIR fields 
and published research reports that made use of the data sources; and 
(3) working closely with agency officials to identify any data 
problems. When we found apparent discrepancies (such as fields 
containing what appeared to be erroneous data) we brought them to the 
agency's attention and worked with it to understand the discrepancies 
before conducting our analyses. We determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. 

Reliability of Data on Panel versus Single-Member BIA Decisions: 

We examined the outcomes of appeals that were decided by single BIA 
members and by panels of three members. Based on our analysis of the 
field indexing who made the decision and further discussions with EOIR 
data specialists, we determined that the reliability of the field 
indexing single versus panel decisions was unknown for years prior to 
fiscal year 2004 and was most reliable since fiscal year 2004, because 
of extensive training provided to the BIA staff. Thus, we examined 
outcomes for fiscal years 2004 through 2006. 

Document Review and Interviews with Agency Officials: 

To gain a better understanding of the procedural changes in 
adjudication procedures that have occurred at the BIA since 1999 
(referred to as "Streamlining"), we reviewed the streamlining 
regulations;[Footnote 65] memorandums issued by the BIA Chairman 
between November 2000 and August 2002 expanding the categories of 
appeals for which streamlined procedures were authorized;[Footnote 66] 
two independent assessments of the 1999 and 2002 procedural 
changes;[Footnote 67] and an analysis of the association between the 
change in procedures at the BIA and the increase in petitions for 
review of these decisions in the U.S. courts of appeal.[Footnote 68] We 
also interviewed the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the BIA; officials 
from DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), which handles and 
coordinates all federal court litigation arising under the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, including petitions for review in the federal 
courts; and Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of New 
York. Until recently, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern 
District of New York handled all alien petitions for review in the 2nd 
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We also interviewed seven federal 
appeals court judges who were available and agreed to meet with us in 
the two circuits handling the largest number of petitions for review of 
BIA decisions (the 2nd and 9th circuits). 

Information on the 1-Year Rule: 

To address issues regarding the effects of the 1-year rule and 
resources expended adjudicating it, we added questions about 
immigration judges' views of the 1-year rule to a Web-based survey of 
immigration judges that was being conducted as part of another GAO 
review.[Footnote 69] The survey was sent to all immigration judges 
identified as having been in their position since at least September 
30, 2006--a total of 207 immigration judges. GAO social science survey 
specialists along with GAO staff knowledgeable about asylum 
adjudications developed the survey instrument. We sent a draft of the 
survey to EOIR officials and ACIJs for preliminary review to ensure 
that our questions were clear and unambiguous and used clear 
terminology and appropriate response options, and that the survey was 
comprehensive and unbiased. We also asked for and received comments 
from National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) representatives 
on the draft immigration judge survey. We considered comments and 
suggestions from all parties and made revisions where we thought 
warranted. We conducted telephone pretests of the survey with three 
immigration judges in three different immigration courts to ensure that 
the questions were clear and concise, and refined the instrument based 
on feedback we received. The survey, which was conducted between May 30 
and July 29, 2007, resulted in a response rate of 77 percent. In 
analyzing the survey data, we generated descriptive statistics on the 
close-ended survey responses and had two GAO analysts review all of the 
open-ended responses. 

To review information on how many cases were referred to the 
immigration courts by DHS asylum officers, we obtained data from 
USCIS's Asylum Division. To assess the reliability of these data, we 
reviewed existing information about the Asylum Division's data systems 
and reviewed the data for obvious errors in accuracy or completeness. 
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for presenting 
overall trends in 1-year rule referrals. We did not report data for 
fiscal year 2007 because we were unable to verify these data with the 
data from another Asylum Division report. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2005 through 
September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Differences in Asylum Grant Rates across Immigration 
Courts: 

In this appendix, we present descriptive information on how immigration 
judge decisions differed for affirmative and defensive cases as a 
function of the asylum seeker's nationality, the immigration court, and 
time period the asylum case was heard in, and whether the asylum seeker 
was represented, had dependents, and applied for asylum within a year 
of entering the country. For defensive cases, we further considered 
whether the asylum seeker had ever been detained. We also provide 
statistical results from logistic regression models that estimated the 
effects of these different factors to determine whether differences in 
decisions across immigration courts persisted after these other factors 
were controlled. 

Our analyses included all asylum cases decided from October 1, 1994, 
through April 30, 2007, that involved asylum seekers from the 20 
countries that produced the most asylum cases and the 19 immigration 
courts that handled the largest numbers of asylum cases. Each of the 20 
countries and 19 immigration courts contributed a minimum of 800 asylum 
cases to our analyses. The 20 countries represented 73 percent of all 
asylum cases that were decided during this period, and the 19 
immigration courts represented 87 percent of all asylum cases. This 
combination of countries and immigration courts yielded slightly more 
than 198,000 cases for our analyses, which constituted 66 percent of 
all asylum cases decided during this period. We excluded roughly 4 
percent of these cases because they had missing data on one or more of 
the variables we used in our analyses. 

Overall Grant and Denial Rates: 

Table 8 shows the numbers and percentages of affirmative and defensive 
asylum cases across the countries and immigration courts analyzed that 
were granted and denied, with the denied cases broken out separately 
according to whether or not the asylum decision was made in absentia 
(that is, the asylum seeker failed to appear before the immigration 
judge). Asylum denials were far more frequent than grants, with 
immigration judges granting less than 30 percent of either affirmative 
or defensive asylum cases. They granted asylum in a somewhat higher 
percentage of affirmative cases (29.8 percent) than defensive cases 
(24.7 percent). The percentage of affirmative cases denied because the 
asylum seeker was in absentia was much higher for affirmative cases 
(19.0 percent) than for defensive cases (3.8 percent). 

Table 8: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied: 

Type of asylum case: Affirmative; Asylum decision: Granted: 37,266; 
Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 23,741; Asylum decision: Denied- 
not in absentia: 63,965; Asylum decision: Total: 124,972. 

Type of asylum case: Affirmative; Asylum decision: Granted: 29.8; 
Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 19.0; Asylum decision: Denied-not 
in absentia: 51.2; Asylum decision: Total: 100. 

Type of asylum case: Defensive; Asylum decision: Granted: 16,180; 
Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 2,486; Asylum decision: Denied-not 
in absentia: 46,838; Asylum decision: Total: 65,504. 

Type of asylum case: Defensive; Asylum decision: Granted: 24.7; Asylum 
decision: Denied-in absentia: 3.8; Asylum decision: Denied-not in 
absentia: 71.5; Asylum decision: Total: 100. 

Type of asylum case: Total; 
Asylum decision: Granted: 53,446; Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 
26,227; Asylum decision: Denied-not in absentia: 110,803; Asylum 
decision: Total: 190,476. 

Type of asylum case: Total; 
Asylum decision: Granted: 28.1; Asylum decision: Denied-in absentia: 
13.8; Asylum decision: Denied-not in absentia: 58.2; Asylum decision: 
Total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of table] 

Grant and Denial Rates by Immigration Court: 

Table 9 shows, separately for affirmative and defensive cases, 
differences in the percentages of cases granted and denied across the 
19 different courts in our analysis. The percentage of affirmative 
cases that were granted asylum ranged from 2.4 percent in Atlanta to 
47.6 percent in New York. The percentage of defensive cases that were 
granted asylum ranged from 6.7 percent in Atlanta to 34.6 percent in 
San Francisco. The percentages of cases denied because of the asylum 
seeker's being in absentia also varied markedly across the 19 courts, 
especially for affirmative cases where the numbers of in absentia cases 
were larger. In Los Angeles and Atlanta, 46.3 percent and 61.5 percent 
of affirmative asylum cases, respectively, were denied as a result of 
the asylum seeker's being in absentia, while the same was true of only 
roughly 1 percent of the affirmative cases in Orlando, San Francisco, 
and Seattle. 

Table 9: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied, by Immigration Court: 

Numbers in percents. 

Immigration court: Arlington; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: 
Granted (%): 858; (24.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 766; 
(21.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%): 
1,878; (53.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3,502; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 480; (25.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 122; 
(6.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1,249; (67.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1,851; (100). 

Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 100; (2.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 2,603; 
(61.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1,529; (36.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 4,232; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 52; (6.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 39; 
(5.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 680; 
(88.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 771; (100). 

Immigration court: Baltimore; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: 
Granted (%): 1116; (36.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 702; 
(23); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%): 
1235; (40.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3053; (100.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 388; (30.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 106; 
(8.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 791; 
(61.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1285; (100). 

Immigration court: Bloomington; Decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 157; (26.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 10; 
(1.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%): 
425; (71.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 592; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 99; (18.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 4; 
(0.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 435; 
(80.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 538; (100). 

Immigration court: Boston; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 551; (26); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 277; 
(13.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1288; (60.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2116; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 381; (20.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 57; 
(3.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1401; (76.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1839; (100). 

Immigration court: Chicago; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 833; (33.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 96; 
(3.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1539; (62.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2468; (100.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 521; (26.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 48; 
(2.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1415; (71.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1984; (100). 

Immigration court: Dallas; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 382; (43.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 25; 
(2.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
467; (53.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 874; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 144; (22.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 7; 
(1.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 488; 
(76.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 639; (100). 

Immigration court: Denver; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 385; (32.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 46; 
(3.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
761; (63.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1192; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 98; (17.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 6; 
(1.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 452; 
(81.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 556; (100). 

Immigration court: Detroit; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 208; (19.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 72; 
(6.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
795; (74); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1075; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 139; (13.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 33; 
(3.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 843; 
(83.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1015; (100.1). 

Immigration court: Houston; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 344; (22.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 98; 
(6.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1072; (70.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1514; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 206; (10); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 58; 
(2.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1798; (87.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2062; (100). 

Immigration court: Los Angeles; Decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 3626; (14.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 11769; 
(46.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%): 
10029; (39.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 25424; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 743; (16.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 350; 
(8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
3297; (75.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 4390; (100). 

Immigration court: Miami; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 3976; (18.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 487; 
(2.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
16891; (79.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 21354; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 1683; (13.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 186; 
(1.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
10612; (85); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 12481; (100). 

Immigration court: New York; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: 
Granted (%): 16886; (47.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 4436; 
(12.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
14159; (39.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 35481; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8217; (33.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1240; 
(5.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
15003; (61.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 24460; (100). 

Immigration court: Newark; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 985; (23.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 1078; 
(26.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
2051; (49.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 4114; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 509; (23.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 66; (3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1609; (73.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2184; (100). 

Immigration court: Orlando; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1123; (42.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 33; 
(1.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1500; (56.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2656; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 291; (33); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 11; 
(1.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 579; 
(65.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 881; (99.9). 

Immigration court: Philadelphia; Decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 571; (24.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 225; 
(9.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%): 
1570; (66.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2366; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 230; (16); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 48; 
(3.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1162; (80.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1440; (100). 

Immigration court: San Diego; Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: 
Granted (%): 310; (15.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 866; 
(43); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%): 
836; (41.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2012; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 251; (19.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 53; 
(4.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 959; 
(75.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1263; (100). 

Immigration court: San Francisco; Decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 4634; (45.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 147; 
(1.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied- not in absentia (%): 
5443; (53.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 10224; (99.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 1540; (34.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 38; 
(0.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
2873; (64.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 4451; (100). 

Immigration court: Seattle; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 221; (30.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 5; 
(0.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
497; (68.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 723; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 208; (14.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 14; (1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1192; (84.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1414; (100). 

Immigration court: Total; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741; 
(19); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
63965; (51.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486; 
(3.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
46838; (71.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100). 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of table] 

Grant and Denial Rates by Nationality: 

We examined whether the sizable differences in the percentage of cases 
granted and denied asylum across immigration courts may be because the 
fact that immigration courts differ in the types of cases they handle, 
particularly in terms of differences in asylum seekers' nationality. 
Table 10 shows the different grant rates for asylum seekers from 
different countries, again for affirmative and defensive cases 
separately. While the percentage of affirmative cases granted asylum 
equaled or exceeded 50 percent for asylum seekers from some countries-
-including Albania, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Russia, and Yugoslavia--it 
was lower than 10 percent for asylum seekers from other countries, 
including El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. Pronounced 
differences in the percentage of cases granted asylum across countries 
are evident for defensive cases, as well. Nearly half or more than half 
of the asylum seekers in defensive cases from Ethiopia, Iran, and 
Somalia were granted asylum, while the same was true of only about 10 
percent, or less than 10 percent, of the asylum seekers in defensive 
cases from El Salvador, Honduras, and Indonesia. Among affirmative 
cases, there are also sizable differences in the percentages denied 
because of asylum seekers' being in absentia. For example, fully two- 
thirds of such cases from Mexico were denied, but only 2 or 3 percent 
of the cases involving Colombians or Haitians were denied with the 
claimant in absentia. 

Table 10: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied, by Country: 

Country: Albania; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 2,134; (53.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 153; 
(3.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1,675; (42.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3,962; (100.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 665; (37.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 43; 
(2.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1,052; (59.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1,760; (100). 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 622; (24.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 592; 
(23.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1310; (51.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2524; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 188; (27.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 46; 
(6.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 455; 
(66); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 689; (100). 

Country: China; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 14800; (50); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 2398; 
(8.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
12384; (41.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 29582; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8240; (33.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 673; 
(2.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
15417; (63.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 24330; (100.1). 

Country: Colombia; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 2775; (33.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 201; 
(2.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
5317; (64.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 8293; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 512; (20.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 55; 
(2.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1935; (77.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2502; (100). 

Country: El Salvador; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 369; (3.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 4232; 
(44.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
4971; (51.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 9572; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 371; (6.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 343; 
(6.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
4705; (86.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 5419; (99.9). 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1713; (51.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 123; 
(3.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1509; (45.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3345; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 652; (51.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 26; (2); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 599; 
(46.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1277; (100). 

Country: Guatemala; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 826; (5.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 6197; 
(41.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
7927; (53); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 14950; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 516; (12.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 262; 
(6.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
3220; (80.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 3998; (100). 

Country: Haiti; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 2232; (15.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 372; 
(2.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
11427; (81.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 14031; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 1254; (12.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 180; 
(1.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
8665; (85.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 10099; (100). 

Country: Honduras; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 92; (5.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 855; 
(47.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
850; (47.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1797; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 181; (9.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 143; 
(7.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1513; (82.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1837; (100.1). 

Country: India; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 3260; (38.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 710; 
(8.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
4438; (52.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 8408; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 668; (22.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 244; 
(8.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
2018; (68.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2930; (100). 

Country: Indonesia; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1244; (32.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 160; 
(4.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
2477; (63.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3881; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 167; (10.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 41; 
(2.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1408; (87.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1616; (99.9). 

Country: Iran; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 927; (53.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 144; 
(8.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
663; (38.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1734; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 343; (48.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 18; 
(2.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 345; 
(48.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 706; (100). 

Country: Mexico; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 184; (2.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 5364; 
(67.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
2373; (30); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 7921; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 102; (15.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 33; (5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 522; 
(79.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 657; (100). 

Country: Nicaragua; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 106; (12); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 230; 
(26); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
549; (62); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 885; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 216; (14.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 52; 
(3.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1243; (82.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1511; (100). 

Country: Nigeria; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 334; (28.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 216; 
(18.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
622; (53.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1172; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 236; (25.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 45; 
(4.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 646; 
(69.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 927; (100.1). 

Country: Pakistan; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 757; (29.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 662; 
(25.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1139; (44.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2558; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 373; (20.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 196; 
(10.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1234; (68.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1803; (100). 

Country: Peru; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 610; (27.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 235; 
(10.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1356; (61.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2201; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 217; (27.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 15; 
(1.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 555; 
(70.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 787; (100). 

Country: Russia; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1869; (58.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 222; 
(7); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1100; (34.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 3191; (100.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 287; (41.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 19; 
(2.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 379; 
(55.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 685; (100). 

Country: Somalia; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1343; (44.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 547; 
(18.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
1100; (36.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 2990; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 471; (57); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 11; 
(1.3); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 345; 
(41.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 827; (100). 

Country: Yugoslavia; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 1069; (54.1); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 128; 
(6.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
778; (39.4); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1975; (100); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 521; (45.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 41; 
(3.6); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 582; 
(50.9); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 1144; (100). 

Country: Total; 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741; 
(19); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
63965; (51.2); 
Decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100); 
Decision (by type of case)
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486; 
(3.8); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not in absentia (%): 
46838; (71.5); 
Decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100). 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of table] 

Grant and Denial Rates by Claimant Characteristics: 

Table 11 presents information, separately for affirmative and defensive 
asylum cases, on how grant rates differed across different claimant 
characteristics. For example, the percentage of affirmative and 
defensive cases that were granted asylum increased over time. The top 
panel of table 11 shows the percentages of cases granted and denied in 
three different periods. The three periods cover the interval (1) from 
the beginning of our data series on October 1, 1994, until March 30, 
1997, the day prior to the implementation date for Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; (2) from April 1, 1997, 
through September 10, 2001; and (3) from September 11, 2001, through 
the final day in our data series on April 30, 2007. The percentage of 
affirmative cases that were granted asylum increased from 9.5 percent 
in the first period, to 26.8 percent in the second period, to 41.8 
percent in the third. The percentage of defensive cases that were 
granted asylum increased from 15.3 percent in the first period to 26.0 
percent in the second period and 28.6 percent in the third. For 
affirmative cases in particular, denials resulting from claimants' 
being in absentia decreased considerably over the three periods from 
44.0 percent in the first period, to 22.7 percent in the second, and to 
4.3 percent in the third. Case outcome also differed as a function of 
whether claimants were represented, had dependents, or filed their 
claims within 1 year of entering the country. For affirmative cases, 
(1) 36.8 percent of claimants who were represented were granted asylum, 
compared to 4.0 percent who were not represented; (2) 40.2 percent of 
the claimants with dependents were granted asylum, compared with 28.4 
percent of the claimants without dependents; and (3) 36.5 percent of 
claimants who applied for asylum within 1 year of entering the country 
were granted asylum, compared to 18.4 percent who applied more than 1 
year later.[Footnote 70] We found roughly similar, though somewhat less 
pronounced differences, for claimants in defensive cases. For defensive 
cases, we also considered whether there were differences between those 
who had and had not been detained, but as the bottom panel of table 13 
shows, those differences were very small (24.1 percent versus 25.4 
percent). 

Table 11: Numbers and Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Asylum 
Cases Granted and Denied, by Various Claimant Characteristics: 

Claimant characteristic: 10/1/94 - 3/30/97; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 2,087; (9.5); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 9,712; 
(44); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 10,268; 
(46.5); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 22,067; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 2,521; (15.3); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1,305; 
(7.9); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 12,635; 
(76.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 16,461; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: 4/1/97 - 9/10/01; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 13991; (26.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 11875; 
(22.7); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 26402; 
(50.5); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 52268; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 3784; (26); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 553; (3.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 10211; 
(70.2); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 14548; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: 9/11/01 - 4/30/07; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 21188; (41.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 2154; 
(4.3); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 27295; 
(53.9); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 50637; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 9875; (28.6); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 628; (1.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 23992; 
(69.6); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 34495; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Period total; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741; 
(19); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965; 
(51.2); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486; 
(3.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838; 
(71.5); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Representation; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 36198; (36.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 5994; 
(6.1); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 56115; 
(57.1); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 98307; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 15855; (25.9); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2049; 
(3.4); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 43196; 
(70.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 61100; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: No representation; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 1068; (4); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 17747; 
(66.6); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 7850; 
(29.4); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 26665; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 325; (7.4); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 437; (9.9); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 3642; 
(32.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 4404; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Representation total; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741; 
(19); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965; 
(51.2); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486; 
(3.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838; 
(71.5); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Dependents; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 6086; (40.2); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 996; 
(6.6); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 8065; 
(53.2); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 15147; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 987; (36); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 57; (2.1); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 1700; 
(62); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 2744; (100.1). 

Claimant characteristic: No dependents; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 31180; (28.4); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 22745; 
(20.7); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 55900; 
(50.9); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 109825; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 15193; (24.2); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2429; 
(3.9); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 45138; 
(71.9); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 62760; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Dependents total; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741; 
(19); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965; 
(51.2); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486; 
(3.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838; 
(71.5); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: App not filed in 1 year; Group (by type of 
case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 9132; (18.4); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 14105; 
(28.5); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 26284; 
(53.1); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 49521; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 4124; (21.1); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 666; (3.4); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 14734; 
(75.5); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 19524; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: App filed w/in 1 year; Group (by type of 
case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 24215; (36.5); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 8589; 
(12.9); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 33596; 
(50.6); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 66400; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8551; (28.4); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 873; (2.9); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied- not absentia (%): 20671; 
(68.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 30095; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Missing; Group (by type of case): Affirmative: 
Granted (%): 3919; (43.3); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 1047; 
(11.6); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 4085; 
(45.1); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 9051; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 3505; (22.1); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 947; (6); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 11433; 
(72); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 15885; (100.1). 

Claimant characteristic: App filed 1 year total; Group (by type of 
case): Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741; 
(19); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965; 
(51.2); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486; 
(3.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied- not absentia (%): 46838; 
(71.5); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Ever detained; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 103; (8.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 122; 
(10.4); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 952; 
(80.9); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 1177; (100.1); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 8329; (24.1); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1061; 
(3.1); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 25152; 
(72.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 34542; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Never detained; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37163; (30); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23619; 
(19.1); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63013; 
(50.9); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 123795; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 7851; (25.4); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 1425; 
(4.6); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 21686; 
(70); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 30962; (100). 

Claimant characteristic: Detained total; Group (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Granted (%): 37266; (29.8); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-in absentia (%): 23741; 
(19); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Denied-not absentia (%): 63965; 
(51.2); 
Group (by type of case): Affirmative: Total (%): 124972; (100); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Granted (%): 16180; (24.7); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-in absentia (%): 2486; 
(3.8); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Denied-not absentia (%): 46838; 
(71.5); 
Group (by type of case): Defensive: Total (%): 65504; (100). 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of table] 

Grant and Denial Rates by Country and Immigration Court: 

To get a general sense of whether the seemingly large disparities in 
asylum outcomes across immigration courts were associated with the fact 
that different immigration courts handled different numbers of cases 
from the 20 countries we considered, we first looked at how, for 
claimants from the same country, decisions differed depending on which 
immigration court handled their case. In doing so, we restricted our 
analysis to immigration courts that handled 50 or more affirmative 
cases and 50 or more defensive cases from a given country, both to 
simplify our results and to avoid giving too much weight to differences 
in percentages that were based on very small numbers of cases. Table 12 
shows the percentages granted and denied when the cases denied in 
absentia are excluded. When looking at differences in grant rates for 
the same country across immigration courts, we excluded cases denied in 
absentia because the denial of in absentia cases involves no judicial 
discretion. 

Table 12 shows the percentages granted and denied across immigration 
courts, for both affirmative and defensive cases, for cases from the 20 
countries. While grant rates for affirmative cases were similar for a 
few countries, such as Bangladesh and Iran, there were large 
differences in grant rates across immigration courts for most 
countries. For example, 12 percent of Chinese asylum seekers in 
affirmative cases were granted asylum in Atlanta, while 75 percent were 
granted asylum in Orlando. Similarly, less than 1 percent of 
Guatemalans in affirmative cases were granted asylum in Atlanta, while 
slightly more than 30 percent were granted asylum in San Francisco. 
Claimants in affirmative cases from many other countries show markedly 
different percentages granted across the various immigration courts 
they came into. The percentages granted in such cases range from 21 
percent to 68 percent for Albanians, from 14 percent to 69 percent for 
Colombians, and from 14 percent to 77 percent for Ethiopians. For many 
countries, the percentage of defensive cases that were granted asylum 
varied similarly depending upon the immigration court they came into. 

Table 12: Percentages of Affirmative and Defensive Cases Granted and 
Denied, by Country and Immigration Court, for Immigration Courts 
Deciding 50 or More Cases from the Different Countries: 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 48.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 51.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 162; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 128. 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 46.4; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 53.6; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 211; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 31.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 68.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 135. 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Detroit; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 21.4; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 78.6; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 495; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 297. 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 50.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 49.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 81; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 25.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 74.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 178. 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 68.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 31.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 2,330; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 58.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
41.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 656. 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 192; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 30.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 69.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 122. 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Orlando; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 39.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 60.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 88; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 41.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 58.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 119; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Albania; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 56.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 43.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 3,678; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 38.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 61.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 1,516. 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 30.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 69.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 339; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 23.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
76.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 68. 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 33.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 66.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 1,256; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 34; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
66; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 415. 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 26.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 73.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 69; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 32.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 67.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,664; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 32.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 67.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 483. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 150; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 29.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
70.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 208. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 88; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 92; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 3.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 96.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 286. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 185; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
66.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 210. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 28.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 71.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 57. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 53.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 46.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 243; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 40.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 59.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 247. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 49.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 50.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 325; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 32; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 68; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 410. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Dallas; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 39.5; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 60.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 76. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Denver; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 65; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 35; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Detroit; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 35.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 64.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 56; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 12.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 87.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 234. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 56.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 43.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 125; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 43.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 56.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 3,505; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 41; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
59; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 495. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 47.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 52.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 74; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 25.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 74.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 316. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 56.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 43.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 19,993; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 35.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 64.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 18,424. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 57.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 42.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 783; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 35.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 64.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 825. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Orlando; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 75; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 25; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 76; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 60; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 40; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 130. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 461; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 25.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
74.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 543. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 66.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 32.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
67.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 217. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 58.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 41.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 914; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 48.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
51.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 645. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 22; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Denied: 78; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 254. 

Country: China; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 54.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 45.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 27,096; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 34.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 65.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 23,577. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 50.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 49.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 55; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 13.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 86.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 137; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 111; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 16.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 83.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 203. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 47.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 52.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 84; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 29.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 70.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 92; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 88.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 67. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 36.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 63.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 152; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 22.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
77.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 72. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 27.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 72.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 5,539; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 16.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 83.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 1,318. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 69.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 30.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 291; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 41.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
58.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 212. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 25.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 74.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 198; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 18.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 81.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 166. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Orlando; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 55.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 44.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,185; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 44.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 55.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 101. 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 64; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Colombia; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 34.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 65.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 7,908; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 79.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 2,139. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 2.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 97.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 333; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 92; 
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 338. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 2.4; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 97.6; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 248; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 7.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 92.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 177; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 7.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
92.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 180. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 93; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 71; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 1.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
98.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 72. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 8.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 91.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 245; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 6.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 93.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 192. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 14.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 85.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 158; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 12.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 87.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 132. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Dallas; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 87.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 81; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 3.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 96.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 103. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Denver; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 1.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 98.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 118; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 1.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 98.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 132. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 4.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 95.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 440; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 2.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 97.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 793. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 96; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 1,403; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 4.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
95.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 1,014. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 416; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 6.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 93.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 225. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 8.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 91.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 681; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 16; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 84; 
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 374. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 93; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 201; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 3.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 96.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 122. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 4.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Denied: 95.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
147. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 15.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 84.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 577; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 14.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
85.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 897. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 2.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 97.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 94; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 2.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 97.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 256. 

Country: El Salvador; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 93; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 5,243; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 7.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 92.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 4,977. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 39; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 61; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 843; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 49.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
50.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 373. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 14.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 85.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 56; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 57.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 42.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 1,133; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 59.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
40.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 273. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 42.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 57.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 109; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 30.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
69.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 52. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 66.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 33.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 98; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 47.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 52.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 69. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Dallas; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 45; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 131; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 38.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 61.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 55. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Denver; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 77.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 22.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 79; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 65.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 34.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 225; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 69; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 31; 
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 71. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 73.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 26.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 46.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 53.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 77; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 74.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 25.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 225; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 77.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
22.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 81. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 43.1; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 56.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 51. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 53.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 46.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 3,036; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 53.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 46.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 1,025. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 6.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 93.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 228; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 9.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
90.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 123. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 0.4; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 99.6; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 490; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 8.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 91.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 99; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 17.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
82.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 68. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 3.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 96.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 97; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 12.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
87.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 57. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 92; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 375; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 89; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 236. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 10.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 89.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 673; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 88.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 334. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Dallas; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 22; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 78; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 50; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Denver; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 95; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 240; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 5.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 94.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 96. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Detroit; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 1.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 98.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 93; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 11.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 88.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 293; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 8.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 91.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 306. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 5.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 94.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 2,871; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 8.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
91.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 789. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 87.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,180; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 88.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 297. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 12.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 87.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 331; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 22.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
77.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 120. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 92.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 279; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 10.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 89.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 74. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Orlando; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 5.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 94.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 2.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 97.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 319; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 10; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 90; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 250; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 10.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
89.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 301. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 30.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 69.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 734; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 33.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
66.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 563. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 8.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 91.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 97; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 95.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 209. 

Country: Guatemala; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.4; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.6; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 8,753; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 13.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 86.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 3,573. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.5; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 95.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 66. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 24.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 75.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 11.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
88.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 63. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 25.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 74.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 237; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: Country: 13.8; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Denied: Country: 86.2; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: Total: Country: 362. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Country: Miami; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 14.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 85.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 11,678; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 11.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 88.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 8,210. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 32.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 67.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 332 Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 23.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
76.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 299. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 88; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 200; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 88.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 213. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Orlando; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 25.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 74.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,008; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 21.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 78.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 499. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 34.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 65.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 58; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 21.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
78.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 55. 

Country: Haiti; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 16.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 83.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 13,567; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 12.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 87.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 9,767. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 11; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Denied: 89; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 109. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.3; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 95.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 328. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 6.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 93.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 329; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 9.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
90.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 224. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 13.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 86.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 180; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 90.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 319. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 14.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 85.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 84; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 28.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
71.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 87. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 6.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Denied: 93.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 79. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 12.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 87.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 62; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 21.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
78.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 152. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.4; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 90.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 85. 

Country: Honduras; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 655; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 10.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 89.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 1,383. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 16.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 83.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 91; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 4.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 95.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 115. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.9; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 79.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 67. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 36.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 63.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 576; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 34.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
65.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 104. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 32.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 67.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 1,049; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 18.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
81.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 803. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 20.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 79.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 278; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 6.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 93.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 118. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 15; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 85; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 48.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 51.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 5,143; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 36.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
63.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 1,133. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 44.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 185; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 26.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 73.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 92. 

Country: India; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 43.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 56.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 7,382; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 26.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 73.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 2,432. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 18.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 81.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 164; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 9.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 90.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 63; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 46.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 53.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 77; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 19.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 80.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 177; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 132. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 54; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Denver; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 17.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 82.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 203; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 31.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 68.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 737; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 11.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
88.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 401. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 61; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 39; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 733; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 28; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 72; 
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 214. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 18.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 81.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 145; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 7.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 92.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 84. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 14.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 85.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 765; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 1.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
98.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: Total: 403. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 52.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 47.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 442; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 1.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 98.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 64; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 1.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 98.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 116. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 33.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 66.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 3,624; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 90.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 1,350. 

Country: Iran; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 70.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 29.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 61; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Iran; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 67.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 32.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 55; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Iran; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 73.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 26.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 57; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Iran; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 52.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 47.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 970; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 43.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
56.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 218. 

Country: Iran; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 42.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 57.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 57. 

Country: Iran; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 72.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 27.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 187; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 65.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
34.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 89. 

Country: Iran; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 57.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 42.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,330; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 48.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 51.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 364. 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 2.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 97.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 106; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 3.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 96.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 60; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 96; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 1,124; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 21.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
78.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 115. 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 5.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 94.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 113; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 8.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 91.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 206; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 10.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
89.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 119. 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 12.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 87.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 764; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 23.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
76.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 161. 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 5.2; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 94.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 58. 

Country: Mexico; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 7.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 92.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 2,373; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 17.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 82.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 453. 

Country: Nicaragua; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 19.1; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 80.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 89. 

Country: Nicaragua; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 10.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 89.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 136; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 10.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
89.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 164. 

Country: Nicaragua; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 15.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 84.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 396; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 14; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 86; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 842. 

Country: Nicaragua; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 18.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 81.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 148. 

Country: Nicaragua; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 14.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 85.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 532; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 14.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 85.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 1,243. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 23.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 76.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 69. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.1; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 90.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 55. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 37.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 62.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 110; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 19; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 81; 
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 84. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Boston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 45.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 54.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 51; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 33.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 66.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 56. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 32.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 67.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 59; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 32.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 67.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 83. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Dallas; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 14; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Denied: 86; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 50. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 28.8; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 71.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 59. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 35.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 64.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 315; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 38.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
61.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 119. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 39.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 60.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 79; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 66.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 51. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 36.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 63.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 614; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 27.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 72.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 626. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 46.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 53.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 116; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 33.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
66.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 74. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 60; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 40; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 65; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 33.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
66.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 57. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 35.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 64.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 114; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 21.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 78.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 136. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Dallas; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 37.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 62.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 58; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 14.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 85.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 63. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 37.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 62.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 64; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 16.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 83.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 122. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 32.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 67.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 246; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 24.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
75.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 74. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 38.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 61.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 716; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 24.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
75.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 635. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 30.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 69.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 107; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 9.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 90.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 98. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 63.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 36.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 80; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 9.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
90.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 82. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 45.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 54.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 200; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 41.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
58.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 120. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 40.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 59.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,766; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 23.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 76.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 1,461. 

Country: Peru; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Granted: 20.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 79.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 64. 

Country: Peru; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 20.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 79.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 350; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 16.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
83.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 93. 

Country: Peru; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 23.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 76.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 871; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 79.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 246. 

Country: Peru; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 53.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 46.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 95; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Peru; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 17.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 82.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 99; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Peru; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 61.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 38.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 304; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 56.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
43.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 141. 

Country: Peru; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 30.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 69.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,719; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 29.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 70.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 544. 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 62.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 37.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 51; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 67.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 32.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 56; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 44.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 112; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 47; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 53; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 66. 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Denver; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 64.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 35.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 124; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 54.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 45.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 384; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 51.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
48.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 60. 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 61.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 38.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 124; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 69.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 30.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 1,388; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 55.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
44.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 134. 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 57.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 42.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 144; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Orlando; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 61.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 38.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 81; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Philadelphia; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 52.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 47.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 86; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 75.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 24.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 157; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 44.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
55.2; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 67. 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 44.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 55.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 87; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 18.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 81.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 74. 

Country: Russia; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 64; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 36; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 2,794; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 44.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 55.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 401. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Arlington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 39.6; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 60.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 419; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 53.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
46.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 105. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Atlanta; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 12.1; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 87.9; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 174; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 20.4; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 79.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 54. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Baltimore; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 55.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 44.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 194; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 68; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 32; 
Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 50. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Bloomington; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 40.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 59.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 137; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 31.6; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
68.4; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 114. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 80.7; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 19.3; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 145; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 78.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 21.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 73. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Dallas; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 76.5; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 23.5; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 217; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Denver; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 72; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 28; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 132; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Houston; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 82.4; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 17.6; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 51; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: [Empty]; 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Los Angeles; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 60.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 39.3; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 219; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Miami; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: [Empty]; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: [Empty]; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: Total: [Empty]; Group decision 
(by type of case): Defensive: % Granted: 64.2; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Denied: 35.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: Total: 95. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: San Diego; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 39.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 60.8; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 365; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: 55.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
44.7; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 76. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: San Francisco; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 83; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 17; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 206; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Granted: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % 
Denied: [Empty]; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 
[Empty]; 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Seattle; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 63; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 37; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 73; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 58.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 41.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 53. 

Country: Somalia; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 54.2; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 45.8; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 2,332; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 52.9; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 47.1; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 620. 

Country: Yugoslavia; 
Immigration court: Chicago; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 48.9; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 51.1; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 133; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 33.1; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 66.9; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 163. 

Country: Yugoslavia; 
Immigration court: Detroit; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 19.6; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 80.4; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 112; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 11.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 88.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 131. 

Country: Yugoslavia; 
Immigration court: New York; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Granted: 64.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: % Denied: 35.5; Group decision (by type of case): 
Affirmative: Total: 1,297; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
% Granted: 60.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: % Denied: 
39.5; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: Total: 613. 

Country: Yugoslavia; 
Immigration court: Newark; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 39.8; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 60.2; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 128; Group decision (by type of 
case): Defensive: % Granted: 43.7; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 56.3; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 71. 

Country: Yugoslavia; 
Immigration court: Total; 
Group decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Granted: 58.3; Group 
decision (by type of case): Affirmative: % Denied: 41.7; Group decision 
(by type of case): Affirmative: Total: 1,670; Group decision (by type 
of case): Defensive: % Granted: 48.2; Group decision (by type of case): 
Defensive: % Denied: 51.8; Group decision (by type of case): Defensive: 
Total: 978. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: The empty cells in the above tables reflect immigration courts 
that heard fewer than 50 affirmative cases or 50 defensive cases 
involving claimants from a specific country. 

[End of table] 

Logistic Regression Results: Odds of Being Granted Asylum: 

One of the difficulties with interpreting the results shown in Table 
12, above, is that there are so many comparisons that can be made and 
that these three-way cross-classifications (e.g., immigration court by 
asylum decision by country) do not take into account the other 
characteristics of the claimants that, as we showed in Table 11, can 
affect asylum decisions; namely, the period in which the cases were 
heard, whether the asylum seekers were represented, whether they had 
dependents, whether they applied for asylum within a year of entering 
the country, and whether, among those whose cases were defensive, they 
had ever been detained. An alternative approach to assessing the 
variability in granting asylum across immigration courts is to use 
logistic regression models, which allow us to estimate the differences 
across immigration courts in a multivariate context, or while 
controlling statistically (and simultaneously) for the effects of these 
other factors. In tables 13 and 14, we show the results of fitting 
logistic regression models to the data for affirmative and defensive 
cases respectively, in both cases after excluding those cases that were 
in absentia. 

Before describing the results of the multivariate regression models, we 
first note one fundamental difference between them and our foregoing 
results, which is that in logistic regression models we use odds and 
odds ratios, rather than percentages and percentage differences, to 
compare countries (or differences by period, between cases represented, 
and so on). The odds themselves are fairly straightforward and can, 
when we are looking at the effect of one factor at a time on the 
likelihood of cases being granted asylum, be calculated directly from 
the percentages granted. To estimate the differences across immigration 
courts, for example, we can calculate the odds on cases' being granted 
in each immigration court, which is simply the percentage granted 
divided by the percentage not granted. In the case of the Atlanta 
immigration court, the odds on being granted would be 6.1/93.9 = 0.07 
(see table 13). This odds has a straightforward interpretation, and 
indicates that 0.07 cases were granted for every 1 case that was not, 
or that 7 cases were granted for every 100 that were not. The odds on 
being granted can be similarly calculated and interpreted for the other 
immigration courts, and at the bottom of Tables 13 and 14, we also show 
the odds on cases' being granted across categories of the other factors 
as well (i.e., period, representation, etc.) 

To compare immigration courts or different categories of the other 
variables, we choose one immigration court or one category of the other 
variables as a referent category, and calculate odds ratios that 
indicate how different the odds are for other immigration courts or 
other categories versus that one. In assessing immigration courts, we 
arbitrarily chose Denver as the referent category. As shown in columns 
4 and 5 in table 13, by dividing, for example, the odds on being 
granted asylum in Atlanta (0.07) and the same odds in Baltimore (0.90) 
by the odds in Denver (0.51), we find that the odds on granting asylum 
(in affirmative cases) are lower in Atlanta than in Denver, by a factor 
of 0.13, but higher in Baltimore than in Denver, by a factor of 1.79. 
Without adjusting for the effects of immigration court, nationality, 
time period, representation, dependents, timeliness of application, and 
detention status, this means that for affirmative cases, the odds on 
asylum being granted in Baltimore were about 14 times greater than in 
Atlanta (1.79 unadjusted odds ratio in Baltimore divided by .13 
unadjusted odds ratio in Atlanta, which are shown in column 5 in table 
13). 

The full set of "unadjusted" odds ratios comparing all immigration 
courts with Denver are given in column 5 of table 13 for affirmative 
cases, and column 5 of table 13 for defensive cases. These unadjusted 
odds ratios indicate the differences in the odds on being granted 
asylum across the various categories of the different factors, when 
factors are considered one at a time. Tables 13 and 14 also show 
unadjusted odds ratios comparing differences across countries, periods, 
representation categories, dependents categories, entry-to-application 
categories and, in table 16, categories that indicate whether the 
applicants for asylum in defensive cases had ever been detained. 

When considering one factor at a time, these unadjusted odds ratios can 
be directly calculated from the percentages granted and denied across 
the categories of each factor. However, when we want to consider the 
effects of the different factors simultaneously--that is, to estimate 
differences across immigration courts after taking account of which 
countries the asylum seekers came from, when their case was heard, 
whether they were represented, etc., we use multivariate logistic 
regression models which involve an iterative statistical estimation 
procedure to obtain a net effect estimate for each factor. These are 
referred to as "adjusted odds ratios," shown in column 6 of tables 13 
and 14. 

Table 13: Results of Modeling Affirmative Cases with Absentia Excluded: 

Factor (1): Arlington; 
Percent granted (2): 31.4; 
Percent denied (3): 68.6; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.46; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.9; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69. 

Factor (1): Atlanta; 
Percent granted (2): 6.1; 
Percent denied (3): 93.9; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.07; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.13[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]. 

Factor (1): Baltimore; 
Percent granted (2): 47.5; 
Percent denied (3): 52.5; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.9; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.79[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.08. 

Factor (1): Bloomington; 
Percent granted (2): 27; 
Percent denied (3): 73; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.73; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.5[A]. 

Factor (1): Boston; 
Percent granted (2): 30; 
Percent denied (3): 70; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.43; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.85; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.14. 

Factor (1): Chicago; 
Percent granted (2): 35.1; 
Percent denied (3): 64.9; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.54; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.07; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.1. 

Factor (1): Dallas; 
Percent granted (2): 45; 
Percent denied (3): 55; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.82; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.62; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.19. 

Factor (1): Denver; 
Percent granted (2): 33.6; 
Percent denied (3): 66.4; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.51; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Ref; Adjusted odds ratios (6): Ref. 

Factor (1): Detroit; 
Percent granted (2): 20.7; 
Percent denied (3): 79.3; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.26; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.52[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A]. 

Factor (1): Houston; 
Percent granted (2): 24.3; 
Percent denied (3): 75.7; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.32; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.63[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.19. 

Factor (1): Los Angeles; 
Percent granted (2): 26.6; 
Percent denied (3): 73.4; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.36; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.71; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.87. 

Factor (1): Miami; 
Percent granted (2): 19.1; 
Percent denied (3): 80.9; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.24; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.47[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.7. 

Factor (1): New York; 
Percent granted (2): 54.4; 
Percent denied (3): 45.6; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.19; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 2.36[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.74[A]. 

Factor (1): Newark; 
Percent granted (2): 32.4; 
Percent denied (3): 67.6; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.48; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.95; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.97. 

Factor (1): Orlando; 
Percent granted (2): 42.8; 
Percent denied (3): 57.2; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.75; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.48; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.6[A]. 

Factor (1): Philadelphia; 
Percent granted (2): 26.7; 
Percent denied (3): 73.3; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.36; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.72; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69. 

Factor (1): San Diego; 
Percent granted (2): 27.1; 
Percent denied (3): 72.9; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.73; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.64[A]. 

Factor (1): San Francisco; 
Percent granted (2): 46; 
Percent denied (3): 54; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.85; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.68[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 2.15[A]. 

Factor (1): Seattle; 
Percent granted (2): 30.8; 
Percent denied (3): 69.2; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.44; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.88; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.87. 

Factor (1): Albania; 
Percent granted (2): 56; 
Percent denied (3): 44; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.27; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 
Referent. 

Factor (1): Bangladesh; 
Percent granted (2): 32.2; 
Percent denied (3): 67.8; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.47; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.37[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.42[A]. 

Factor (1): China; 
Percent granted (2): 54.4; 
Percent denied (3): 45.6; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.2; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.94; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.91. 

Factor (1): Colombia; 
Percent granted (2): 34.3; 
Percent denied (3): 65.7; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.52; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.41[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.52[A]. 

Factor (1): El Salvador; 
Percent granted (2): 6.9; 
Percent denied (3): 93.1; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.07; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.06[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.11[A]. 

Factor (1): Ethiopia; 
Percent granted (2): 53.2; 
Percent denied (3): 46.8; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.14; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.89; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.45[A]. 

Factor (1): Guatemala; 
Percent granted (2): 9.4; 
Percent denied (3): 90.6; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.1; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.08[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]. 

Factor (1): Haiti; 
Percent granted (2): 16.3; 
Percent denied (3): 83.7; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.2; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.15[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.27[A]. 

Factor (1): Honduras; 
Percent granted (2): 9.8; 
Percent denied (3): 90.2; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.11; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.08[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]. 

Factor (1): India; 
Percent granted (2): 42.3; 
Percent denied (3): 57.7; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.73; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.58[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.45[A]. 

Factor (1): Indonesia; 
Percent granted (2): 33.4; 
Percent denied (3): 66.6; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.5; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.39[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.44[A]. 

Factor (1): Iran; 
Percent granted (2): 58.3; 
Percent denied (3): 41.7; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.4; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.1; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.62[A]. 

Factor (1): Mexico; 
Percent granted (2): 7.2; 
Percent denied (3): 92.8; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.08; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.06[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.09[A]. 

Factor (1): Nicaragua; 
Percent granted (2): 16.2; 
Percent denied (3): 83.8; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.19; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.15[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.46[A]. 

Factor (1): Nigeria; 
Percent granted (2): 34.9; 
Percent denied (3): 65.1; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.54; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.42[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.68[A]. 

Factor (1): Pakistan; 
Percent granted (2): 39.9; 
Percent denied (3): 60.1; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.66; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.52[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.68[A]. 

Factor (1): Peru; 
Percent granted (2): 31; 
Percent denied (3): 69; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.45; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.35[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 0.57[A]. 

Factor (1): Russia; 
Percent granted (2): 63; 
Percent denied (3): 37; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.7; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.33[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.51[A]. 

Factor (1): Somalia; 
Percent granted (2): 55; 
Percent denied (3): 45; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.22; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 0.96; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.78[A]. 

Factor (1): Yugoslavia; 
Percent granted (2): 57.9; 
Percent denied (3): 42.1; 
Odds on granted (4): 1.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.08; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.15[A]. 

Factor (1): Period 1; 
Percent granted (2): 16.9; 
Percent denied (3): 83.1; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.2; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 
Referent. 

Factor (1): Period 2; 
Percent granted (2): 34.6; 
Percent denied (3): 65.4; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.53; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 2.61[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.96[A]. 

Factor (1): Period 3; 
Percent granted (2): 43.7; 
Percent denied (3): 56.3; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.78; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 3.82[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 2.65[A]. 

Factor (1): Not represented; Percent granted (2): 12; 
Percent denied (3): 88; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.14; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 
Referent. 

Factor (1): Represented; 
Percent granted (2): 39.2; 
Percent denied (3): 60.8; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.65; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 4.74[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.73a. 

Factor (1): Dependents-No; 
Percent granted (2): 35.8; 
Percent denied (3): 64.2; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.56; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 
Referent. 

Factor (1): Dependents-Yes; 
Percent granted (2): 43; 
Percent denied (3): 57; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.75; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 1.35[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.52[A]. 

Factor (1): Application not filed within 1 year of entry; Percent 
granted (2): 25.8; 
Percent denied (3): 74.2; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.35; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): Referent; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 
Referent. 

Factor (1): Application filed within 1 year of entry; Percent granted 
(2): 41.9; 
Percent denied (3): 58.1; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.72; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): 2.07[A]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): 1.44[A]. 

Factor (1): Information on whether application filed within 1 year of 
entry is missing; Percent granted (2): 49; 
Percent denied (3): 51; 
Odds on granted (4): 0.96; 
Unadjusted odds ratios (5): [Empty]; Adjusted odds ratios (6): [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[A] Statistically significant difference from referent. 

[End of table] 

Table 14: Results of Modeling Defensive Cases with Absentia Excluded: 

Factor: Arlington; 
Percent granted: 27.8; 
Percent denied: 72.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.38; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.77[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.21. 

Factor: Atlanta; 
Percent granted: 7.1; 
Percent denied: 92.9; 
Odds on granted: 0.08; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.35[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.2[A]. 

Factor: Baltimore; 
Percent granted: 32.9; 
Percent denied: 67.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.49; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.26[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.33. 

Factor: Bloomington; 
Percent granted: 18.5; 
Percent denied: 81.5; 
Odds on granted: 0.23; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.05; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.48[A]. 

Factor: Boston; 
Percent granted: 21.4; 
Percent denied: 78.6; 
Odds on granted: 0.27; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.25; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.14. 

Factor: Chicago; 
Percent granted: 26.9; 
Percent denied: 73.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.7[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.1. 

Factor: Dallas; 
Percent granted: 22.8; 
Percent denied: 77.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.3; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.36; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.9. 

Factor: Denver; 
Percent granted: 17.8; 
Percent denied: 82.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.22; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor: Detroit; 
Percent granted: 14.2; 
Percent denied: 85.8; 
Odds on granted: 0.16; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.76; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.3[A]. 

Factor: Houston; 
Percent granted: 10.3; 
Percent denied: 89.7; 
Odds on granted: 0.11; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.53[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.72. 

Factor: Los Angeles; 
Percent granted: 18.4; 
Percent denied: 81.6; 
Odds on granted: 0.23; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.04; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.12. 

Factor: Miami; 
Percent granted: 13.7; 
Percent denied: 86.3; 
Odds on granted: 0.16; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.73; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.84. 

Factor: New York; 
Percent granted: 35.4; 
Percent denied: 64.6; 
Odds on granted: 0.55; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.53[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.57[A]. 

Factor: Newark; 
Percent granted: 24; 
Percent denied: 76; 
Odds on granted: 0.32; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.46; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.02. 

Factor: Orlando; 
Percent granted: 33.4; 
Percent denied: 66.6; 
Odds on granted: 0.5; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.32[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.14[A]. 

Factor: Philadelphia; 
Percent granted: 16.5; 
Percent denied: 83.5; 
Odds on granted: 0.2; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.91; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.7. 

Factor: San Diego; 
Percent granted: 20.7; 
Percent denied: 79.3; 
Odds on granted: 0.26; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.21; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.95. 

Factor: San Francisco; 
Percent granted: 34.9; 
Percent denied: 65.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.54; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.47[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.94[A]. 

Factor: Seattle; 
Percent granted: 14.9; 
Percent denied: 85.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.17; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.8; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.72. 

Factor: Albania; 
Percent granted: 38.7; 
Percent denied: 61.3; 
Odds on granted: 0.63; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor: Bangladesh; 
Percent granted: 29.2; 
Percent denied: 70.8; 
Odds on granted: 0.41; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.65[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.66[A]. 

Factor: China; 
Percent granted: 34.8; 
Percent denied: 65.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.53; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.85; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.74[A]. 

Factor: Colombia; 
Percent granted: 20.9; 
Percent denied: 79.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.26; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.42[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.43[A]. 

Factor: El Salvador; 
Percent granted: 7.3; 
Percent denied: 92.7; 
Odds on granted: 0.08; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.12[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.13[A]. 

Factor: Ethiopia; 
Percent granted: 52.1; 
Percent denied: 47.9; 
Odds on granted: 1.09; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.72[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.26[A]. 

Factor: Guatemala; 
Percent granted: 13.8; 
Percent denied: 86.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.16; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.25[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.31[A]. 

Factor: Haiti; 
Percent granted: 12.6; 
Percent denied: 87.4; 
Odds on granted: 0.14; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.23[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.33[A]. 

Factor: Honduras; 
Percent granted: 10.7; 
Percent denied: 89.3; 
Odds on granted: 0.12; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.19[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.22[A]. 

Factor: India; 
Percent granted: 24.9; 
Percent denied: 75.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.33; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.52[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.45[A]. 

Factor: Indonesia; 
Percent granted: 10.6; 
Percent denied: 89.4; 
Odds on granted: 0.12; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.19[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.18[A]. 

Factor: Iran; 
Percent granted: 49.9; 
Percent denied: 50.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.99; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.57[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.02[A]. 

Factor: Mexico; 
Percent granted: 16.3; 
Percent denied: 83.7; 
Odds on granted: 0.2; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.31[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.32[A]. 

Factor: Nicaragua; 
Percent granted: 14.8; 
Percent denied: 85.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.17; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.27[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.45[A]. 

Factor: Nigeria; 
Percent granted: 26.8; 
Percent denied: 73.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.58[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.89. 

Factor: Pakistan; 
Percent granted: 23.2; 
Percent denied: 76.8; 
Odds on granted: 0.3; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.48[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.51[A]. 

Factor: Peru; 
Percent granted: 28.1; 
Percent denied: 71.9; 
Odds on granted: 0.39; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.62[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.78. 

Factor: Russia; 
Percent granted: 43.1; 
Percent denied: 56.9; 
Odds on granted: 0.76; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.2; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.65[A]. 

Factor: Somalia; 
Percent granted: 57.7; 
Percent denied: 42.3; 
Odds on granted: 1.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.16[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 3.89[A]. 

Factor: Yugoslavia; 
Percent granted: 47.2; 
Percent denied: 52.8; 
Odds on granted: 0.9; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.42[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.68[A]. 

Factor: Period 1; 
Percent granted: 16.6; 
Percent denied: 83.4; 
Odds on granted: 0.2; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor: Period 2; 
Percent granted: 27; 
Percent denied: 73; 
Odds on granted: 0.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.86[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.05[A]. 

Factor: Period 3; 
Percent granted: 29.2; 
Percent denied: 70.8; 
Odds on granted: 0.41; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.06[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.31[A]. 

Factor: Not represented; 
Percent granted: 8.2; 
Percent denied: 91.8; 
Odds on granted: 0.09; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor: Represented; 
Percent granted: 26.8; 
Percent denied: 73.2; 
Odds on granted: 0.37; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 4.11[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 2.31[A]. 

Factor: Dependents-No; 
Percent granted: 25.2; 
Percent denied: 74.8; 
Odds on granted: 0.34; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor: Dependents-Yes; 
Percent granted: 36.7; 
Percent denied: 63.3; 
Odds on granted: 0.58; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.72[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.81[A]. 

Factor: Application not filed within 1 year of entry; Percent granted: 
21.9; 
Percent denied: 78.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.28; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor: Application filed within 1 year of entry; Percent granted: 
29.3; 
Percent denied: 70.7; 
Odds on granted: 0.41; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.48[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 1.28[A]. 

Factor: Information on whether application filed within 1 year of entry 
is missing; Percent granted: 23.5; 
Percent denied: 76.5; 
Odds on granted: 0.31; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: ; 
Adjusted odds ratios: . 

Factor: Never detained; 
Percent granted: 26.6; 
Percent denied: 73.4; 
Odds on granted: 0.36; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor: Currently detained or released; Percent granted: 24.9; 
Percent denied: 75.1; 
Odds on granted: 0.33; 
Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.91[A]; Adjusted odds ratios: 0.69[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[A] Statistically significant difference from referent. 

[End of table] 

The adjusted odds ratios tell us that even after adjusting for the 
sizable differences in the odds on asylum's being granted across 
countries, across the different periods, and across categories of 
representation, dependents, entry-to-application time, and whether ever 
detained (for defensive cases only), there remain sizable differences 
across immigration courts. That is, even after we take account of the 
effects of all these other factors and how, for example, immigration 
courts differ in terms of the asylum seekers' nationalities and when 
asylum seekers' cases were heard, we find sizable differences across 
immigration courts in the odds on granting asylum. After controlling 
for all of these factors, the net effect was that in comparison with 
Denver, the likelihood of affirmative cases' being granted asylum was 
2.15 times greater in San Francisco, half as likely in Bloomington, and 
less than one-fifth as likely in Atlanta. This implies that, for 
affirmative cases, the odds on asylum's being granted were about 4 
times greater in San Francisco than in Bloomington (2.15 adjusted odds 
ratio in San Francisco divided by .5 adjusted odds ratio in 
Bloomington, which are shown in column 6 of table 13), and almost 13 
times greater in San Francisco than in Atlanta (2.15 odds ratio in San 
Francisco divided by .17 odds ratio in Atlanta), even after the other 
differences in claimant characteristics, including where they came 
from, were controlled. Other large differences are implied by these 
adjusted odds ratios, for both affirmative and defensive cases. The 
adjusted odds comparing each immigration court with every other 
immigration court are shown in table 15 (for affirmative cases) and 
table 16 (for defensive cases). 

Table 15: Odds Ratios and Significance Levels of Differences across 
Immigration Courts, for Affirmative Asylum Cases: 

Court: Arlington; 
Reference Court: ARL: [Empty]; Reference Court: ATL: 3.97; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.64; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.40; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.61; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.63; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.58; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.69; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.39; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.58; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.80; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.00; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.40; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.71; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.43; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.01; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.09; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.32; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.80. 

Court: Atlanta; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.25; 
Reference Court: ATL: [Empty]; Reference Court: BAL: 0.16; 
Reference Court: BLM: 0.35; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.15; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.16; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.15; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.17; 
Reference Court: DET: 0.60; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.15; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.20; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.25; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.10; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.18; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.11; 
Reference Court: PHI: 0.25; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.28; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.08; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.20. 

Court: Baltimore; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.55; 
Reference Court: ATL: 6.18; 
Reference Court: BAL: [Empty]; Reference Court: BLM: 2.17; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.94; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.99; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.91; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.08; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.72; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.90; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.24; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.55; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.62; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.11; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.68; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.57; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.70; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.50; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.24. 

Court: Bloomington; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.72; 
Reference Court: ATL: 2.84; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.46; 
Reference Court: BLM: [Empty]; Reference Court: BOS: 0.43; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.45; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.42; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.50; 
Reference Court: DET: 1.71; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.42; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.57; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.71; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.29; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.51; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.31; 
Reference Court: PHI: 0.72; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.78; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.23; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.57. 

Court: Boston; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.65; 
Reference Court: ATL: 6.55; 
Reference Court: BAL: 1.06; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.30; 
Reference Court: BOS: [Empty]; Reference Court: CHI: 1.04; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.96; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.14; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.94; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.96; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.31; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.65; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.66; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.18; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.72; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.67; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.80; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.53; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.32. 

Court: Chicago; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.58; 
Reference Court: ATL: 6.27; 
Reference Court: BAL: 1.01; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.20; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.96; 
Reference Court: CHI: [Empty]; Reference Court: DAL: 0.92; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.10; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.77; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.92; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.26; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.58; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.63; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.13; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.69; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.59; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.72; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.51; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.26. 

Court: Dallas; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.71; 
Reference Court: ATL: 6.81; 
Reference Court: BAL: 1.10; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.40; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.04; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.09; 
Reference Court: DAL: [Empty]; Reference Court: DEN: 1.19; 
Reference Court: DET: 4.10; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.00; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.37; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.71; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.68; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.22; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.75; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.73; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.87; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.55; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.37. 

Court: Denver; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.44; 
Reference Court: ATL: 5.72; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.93; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.01; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.87; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.91; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.84; 
Reference Court: DEN: [Empty]; Reference Court: DET: 3.44; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.84; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.15; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.44; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.57; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.03; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.63; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.46; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.57; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.46; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.15. 

Court: Detroit; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.42; 
Reference Court: ATL: 1.66; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.27; 
Reference Court: BLM: 0.58; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.25; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.27; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.24; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.29; 
Reference Court: DET: [Empty]; Reference Court: HOU: 0.24; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.33; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.42; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.17; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.30; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.18; 
Reference Court: PHI: 0.42; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.46; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.13; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.33. 

Court: Houston; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.72; 
Reference Court: ATL: 6.83; 
Reference Court: BAL: 1.11; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.40; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.04; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.09; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.00; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.19; 
Reference Court: DET: 4.11; 
Reference Court: HOU: [Empty]; Reference Court: LOS: 1.37; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.72; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.69; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.23; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.75; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.74; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.88; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.55; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.37. 

Court: Los Angeles; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.25; 
Reference Court: ATL: 4.98; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.81; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.75; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.76; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.79; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.73; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.87; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.00; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.73; 
Reference Court: LOS: [Empty]; Reference Court: MIA: 1.25; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.50; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.90; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.54; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.27; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.37; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.40; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.00. 

Court: Miami; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.00; 
Reference Court: ATL: 3.98; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.64; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.40; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.61; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.63; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.58; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.70; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.40; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.58; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.80; 
Reference Court: MIA: [Empty]; Reference Court: NYC: 0.40; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.72; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.44; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.01; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.09; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.32; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.80. 

Court: New York City; 
Reference Court: ARL: 2.51; 
Reference Court: ATL: 9.97; 
Reference Court: BAL: 1.61; 
Reference Court: BLM: 3.51; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.52; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.59; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.46; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.74; 
Reference Court: DET: 6.00; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.46; 
Reference Court: LOS: 2.00; 
Reference Court: MIA: 2.50; 
Reference Court: NYC: [Empty]; Reference Court: NEW: 1.79; 
Reference Court: ORL: 1.09; 
Reference Court: PHI: 2.53; 
Reference Court: SDG: 2.74; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.81; 
Reference Court: SEA: 2.00. 

Court: Newark; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.40; 
Reference Court: ATL: 5.56; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.90; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.96; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.85; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.89; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.82; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.97; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.35; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.81; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.12; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.40; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.56; 
Reference Court: NEW: [Empty]; Reference Court: ORL: 0.61; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.41; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.53; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.45; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.12. 

Court: Orlando; 
Reference Court: ARL: 2.30; 
Reference Court: ATL: 9.14; 
Reference Court: BAL: 1.48; 
Reference Court: BLM: 3.21; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.40; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.46; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.34; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.60; 
Reference Court: DET: 5.50; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.34; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.83; 
Reference Court: MIA: 2.30; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.92; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.64; 
Reference Court: ORL: [Empty]; Reference Court: PHI: 2.32; 
Reference Court: SDG: 2.51; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.74; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.84. 

Court: Philadelphia; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.99; 
Reference Court: ATL: 3.93; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.64; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.38; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.60; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.63; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.58; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.69; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.37; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.58; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.79; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.99; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.39; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.71; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.43; 
Reference Court: PHI: [Empty]; Reference Court: SDG: 1.08; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.32; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.79. 

Court: San Diego; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.91; 
Reference Court: ATL: 3.64; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.59; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.28; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.56; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.58; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.53; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.64; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.19; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.53; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.73; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.91; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.36; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.65; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.40; 
Reference Court: PHI: 0.92; 
Reference Court: SDG: [Empty]; Reference Court: SFO: 0.29; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.73. 

Court: San Francisco; 
Reference Court: ARL: 3.10; 
Reference Court: ATL: 12.33; Reference Court: BAL: 2.00; 
Reference Court: BLM: 4.34; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.88; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.97; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.81; 
Reference Court: DEN: 2.15; 
Reference Court: DET: 7.42; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.80; 
Reference Court: LOS: 2.48; 
Reference Court: MIA: 3.10; 
Reference Court: NYC: 1.24; 
Reference Court: NEW: 2.22; 
Reference Court: ORL: 1.35; 
Reference Court: PHI: 3.13; 
Reference Court: SDG: 3.39; 
Reference Court: SFO: [Empty]; Reference Court: SEA: 2.48. 

Court: Seattle; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.25; 
Reference Court: ATL: 4.98; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.81; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.75; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.76; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.79; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.73; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.87; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.00; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.73; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.00; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.25; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.50; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.89; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.54; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.27; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.37; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.40; 
Reference Court: SEA: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: Values bolded where the odds ratio was significant at the p <.05 
level. 

[End of table] 

Table 16: Odds Ratios and Significance Levels of Differences Across 
Immigration Courts, for Defensive Asylum Cases: 

Court: Arlington; 
Reference Court: ARL: [Empty]; Reference Court: ATL: 6.18; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.91; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.53; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.07; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.10; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.35; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.21; 
Reference Court: DET: 4.07; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.68; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.08; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.45; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.77; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.19; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.57; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.74; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.28; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.41; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.69. 

Court: Atlanta; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.16; 
Reference Court: ATL: [Empty]; Reference Court: BAL: 0.15; 
Reference Court: BLM: 0.41; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.17; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.18; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.22; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.20; 
Reference Court: DET: 0.66; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.27; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.17; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.23; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.12; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.19; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.09; 
Reference Court: PHI: 0.28; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.21; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.07; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.27. 

Court: Baltimore; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.10; 
Reference Court: ATL: 6.78; 
Reference Court: BAL: [Empty]; Reference Court: BLM: 2.78; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.17; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.21; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.47; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.33; 
Reference Court: DET: 4.46; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.84; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.19; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.59; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.85; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.31; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.62; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.91; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.40; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.45; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.85. 

Court: Bloomington; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.39; 
Reference Court: ATL: 2.44; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.36; 
Reference Court: BLM: [Empty]; Reference Court: BOS: 0.42; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.43; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.53; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.48; 
Reference Court: DET: 1.61; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.66; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.43; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.57; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.30; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.47; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.22; 
Reference Court: PHI: 0.69; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.50; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.16; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.67. 

Court: Boston; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.94; 
Reference Court: ATL: 5.79; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.85; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.37; 
Reference Court: BOS: [Empty]; Reference Court: CHI: 1.03; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.26; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.14; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.81; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.57; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.01; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.36; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.72; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.12; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.53; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.63; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.19; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.39; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.58. 

Court: Chicago; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.91; 
Reference Court: ATL: 5.62; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.83; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.30; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.97; 
Reference Court: CHI: [Empty]; Reference Court: DAL: 1.22; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.10; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.70; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.53; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.98; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.32; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.70; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.08; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.52; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.58; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.16; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.37; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.53. 

Court: Dallas; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.74; 
Reference Court: ATL: 4.60; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.68; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.88; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.79; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.82; 
Reference Court: DAL: [Empty]; Reference Court: DEN: 0.90; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.03; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.25; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.80; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.08; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.57; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.89; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.42; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.30; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.95; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.31; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.26. 

Court: Denver; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.82; 
Reference Court: ATL: 5.09; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.75; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.09; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.88; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.91; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.11; 
Reference Court: DEN: [Empty]; Reference Court: DET: 3.35; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.38; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.89; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.19; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.64; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.98; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.47; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.43; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.05; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.34; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.39. 

Court: Detroit; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.25; 
Reference Court: ATL: 1.52; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.22; 
Reference Court: BLM: 0.62; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.26; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.27; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.33; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.30; 
Reference Court: DET: [Empty]; Reference Court: HOU: 0.41; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.27; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.36; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.19; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.29; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.14; 
Reference Court: PHI: 0.43; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.31; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.10; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.42. 

Court: Houston; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.60; 
Reference Court: ATL: 3.68; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.54; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.51; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.64; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.66; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.80; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.72; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.42; 
Reference Court: HOU: [Empty]; Reference Court: LOS: 0.64; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.86; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.46; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.71; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.34; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.04; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.76; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.25; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.01. 

Court: Los Angeles; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.92; 
Reference Court: ATL: 5.72; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.84; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.34; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.99; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.02; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.24; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.12; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.76; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.55; 
Reference Court: LOS: [Empty]; Reference Court: MIA: 1.34; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.71; 
Reference Court: NEW: 1.10; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.52; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.61; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.18; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.38; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.56. 

Court: Miami; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.69; 
Reference Court: ATL: 4.26; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.63; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.75; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.74; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.76; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.93; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.84; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.81; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.16; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.75; 
Reference Court: MIA: [Empty]; Reference Court: NYC: 0.53; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.82; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.39; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.20; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.88; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.28; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.16. 

Court: New York City; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.29; 
Reference Court: ATL: 8.00; 
Reference Court: BAL: 1.18; 
Reference Court: BLM: 3.28; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.38; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.43; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.74; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.57; 
Reference Court: DET: 5.27; 
Reference Court: HOU: 2.17; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.40; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.88; 
Reference Court: NYC: [Empty]; Reference Court: NEW: 1.54; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.73; 
Reference Court: PHI: 2.25; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.65; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.53; 
Reference Court: SEA: 2.19. 

Court: Newark; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.84; 
Reference Court: ATL: 5.18; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.76; 
Reference Court: BLM: 2.12; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.90; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.92; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.13; 
Reference Court: DEN: 1.02; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.41; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.41; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.91; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.22; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.65; 
Reference Court: NEW: [Empty]; Reference Court: ORL: 0.48; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.46; 
Reference Court: SDG: 1.07; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.35; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.42. 

Court: Orlando; 
Reference Court: ARL: 1.76; 
Reference Court: ATL: 10.90; Reference Court: BAL: 1.61; 
Reference Court: BLM: 4.46; 
Reference Court: BOS: 1.88; 
Reference Court: CHI: 1.94; 
Reference Court: DAL: 2.37; 
Reference Court: DEN: 2.14; 
Reference Court: DET: 7.17; 
Reference Court: HOU: 2.96; 
Reference Court: LOS: 1.91; 
Reference Court: MIA: 2.56; 
Reference Court: NYC: 1.36; 
Reference Court: NEW: 2.10; 
Reference Court: ORL: [Empty]; Reference Court: PHI: 3.07; 
Reference Court: SDG: 2.25; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.73; 
Reference Court: SEA: 2.98. 

Court: Philadelphia; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.57; 
Reference Court: ATL: 3.55; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.52; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.45; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.61; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.63; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.77; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.70; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.34; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.96; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.62; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.83; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.44; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.69; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.33; 
Reference Court: PHI: [Empty]; Reference Court: SDG: 0.73; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.24; 
Reference Court: SEA: 0.97. 

Court: San Diego; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.78; 
Reference Court: ATL: 4.85; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.72; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.99; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.84; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.86; 
Reference Court: DAL: 1.05; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.95; 
Reference Court: DET: 3.19; 
Reference Court: HOU: 1.32; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.85; 
Reference Court: MIA: 1.14; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.61; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.94; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.44; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.37; 
Reference Court: SDG: [Empty]; Reference Court: SFO: 0.32; 
Reference Court: SEA: 1.32. 

Court: San Francisco; 
Reference Court: ARL: 2.42; 
Reference Court: ATL: 14.98; Reference Court: BAL: 2.21; 
Reference Court: BLM: 6.14; 
Reference Court: BOS: 2.59; 
Reference Court: CHI: 2.67; 
Reference Court: DAL: 3.26; 
Reference Court: DEN: 2.94; 
Reference Court: DET: 9.86; 
Reference Court: HOU: 4.07; 
Reference Court: LOS: 2.62; 
Reference Court: MIA: 3.52; 
Reference Court: NYC: 1.87; 
Reference Court: NEW: 2.89; 
Reference Court: ORL: 1.38; 
Reference Court: PHI: 4.22; 
Reference Court: SDG: 3.09; 
Reference Court: SFO: [Empty]; Reference Court: SEA: 4.09. 

Court: Seattle; 
Reference Court: ARL: 0.59; 
Reference Court: ATL: 3.66; 
Reference Court: BAL: 0.54; 
Reference Court: BLM: 1.50; 
Reference Court: BOS: 0.63; 
Reference Court: CHI: 0.65; 
Reference Court: DAL: 0.80; 
Reference Court: DEN: 0.72; 
Reference Court: DET: 2.41; 
Reference Court: HOU: 0.99; 
Reference Court: LOS: 0.64; 
Reference Court: MIA: 0.86; 
Reference Court: NYC: 0.46; 
Reference Court: NEW: 0.71; 
Reference Court: ORL: 0.34; 
Reference Court: PHI: 1.03; 
Reference Court: SDG: 0.76; 
Reference Court: SFO: 0.24; 
Reference Court: SEA: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO Analysis of EOIR Data. 

Note. Values bolded where the odds ratio was significant at the p <.05 
level. 

[End of table] 

While controlling for these other factors sometimes alters the relative 
likelihoods in granting asylum across the different immigration courts, 
it does not diminish the overall finding that there are substantial 
differences across immigration courts. Figures 11 and 12 show the odds 
ratios (with their 95 percent confidence intervals) that indicate how 
much different the odds on granting asylum were across immigration 
courts before and after adjusting for the other factors, for 
affirmative and defensive cases respectively. Figure 11 shows that for 
affirmative decisions, even after adjustments, three immigration courts 
(Orlando, San Francisco, and New York) had significantly higher odds 
than the referent immigration court (Denver), by factors ranging from 
roughly 1.6 to 2.2.[Footnote 71] Four other immigration courts 
(Atlanta, Detroit, Bloomington, and San Diego) had significantly lower 
odds of granting asylum than the Denver immigration court, by factors 
ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. This implies that all of the former three 
immigration courts had significantly higher odds of granting asylum 
than the latter four immigration courts, by factors ranging from 
roughly 3 to 13. Figure 12 shows fairly similar disparities across 
immigration courts for defensive decisions, with the Orlando, San 
Francisco, and New York courts again being significantly more likely 
and the Atlanta, Detroit, and Bloomington (but not San Diego) courts 
being significantly less likely than other courts to grant asylum. 

Figure 11: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating Immigration 
Court Differences, with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals, for 
Affirmative Cases: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odds Ratios Indicating Immigration 
Court Differences, with 95 Percent Confidence Intervals, for Defensive 
Cases: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Differences in Asylum Grant Rates across Immigration 
Judges: 

In this appendix, we present information on how asylum decisions 
differed across immigration judges. First, we look at all immigration 
judges across the 19 immigration courts in our study who heard 50 or 
more affirmative or defensive cases in their primary immigration court. 
Then, we look at how decisions were affected by characteristics of the 
different immigration judges. And finally we look at selected 
immigration courts by country combinations to see how sizable 
differences were when different immigration judges heard cases 
involving applicants for the same country in the same immigration 
court. In the immigration court by country analyses, we limited the 
analysis to immigration judges who saw 20 or more affirmative and 
defensive cases. In these analyses, the immigration judges were not 
necessarily in their primary court. 

Grant and Denial Rates by Immigration Judges: 

Table 17 (and fig. 5 on page 33 of this report) show the percentage of 
affirmative cases that were granted and denied for all immigration 
judges from the 19 different immigration courts that heard more than 50 
affirmative asylum cases from October 1, 1994, through April 30, 2007, 
with the different immigration judges coded uniquely and arranged 
according to their primary immigration court; that is, the immigration 
court in which they heard the majority of their cases. The information 
in the figure and table is based on 196 immigration judges and 
represents over three-quarters of all affirmative cases heard by all 
immigration judges in the 19 immigration courts. In this and subsequent 
analyses not related to the immigration court by country analyses, we 
excluded immigration judges who heard fewer than 50 affirmative cases 
and cases heard by immigration judges other than in their primary 
immigration court, in order to simplify our presentation and avoid 
calculating percentages based on small numbers of cases. 

Figure 5 and table 17 show that when immigration judges across all 
immigration courts were considered, pronounced differences existed 
across immigration judges in terms of the percentage of affirmative 
cases they granted. While some immigration judges granted asylum to 
fewer than 6 percent of the affirmative cases they hear, others granted 
asylum to more than 60 percent of their cases. This variability across 
the full set of immigration judges may be partly explained by the fact 
that those in different courts heard proportionately different numbers 
of cases from different countries; but even within courts, where cases 
are reportedly assigned at random, the differences in the percentages 
of affirmative asylum cases that were granted asylum often differed 
markedly. To take just a few examples, the percentages of affirmative 
cases granted asylum ranged across immigration judges from 19 percent 
to 61 percent in Arlington, from 8 percent to 54 percent in Boston, 
from 2 percent to 72 percent in Miami, and from 3 percent to 93 percent 
in New York; and the variation across immigration judges in many of the 
remaining courts was similarly greatly disparate. 

Logistic Regression Results: Odds of Being Granted Asylum: 

Given that immigration judges are reportedly assigned cases randomly 
within immigration courts, the variability in the percentages of cases 
granted asylum across immigration judges within immigration courts may 
provide a fairly accurate reflection of how much immigration judges 
differ in their handling of similar cases. However, not all immigration 
judges in each immigration court were on the bench during the whole of 
the period being considered and cases coming into the different 
immigration courts may have changed from early in the period to late in 
the period in terms of where they came from, whether they were 
represented, and so on. 

For that reason, we also considered whether the variability across 
immigration judges persisted after taking account of the differences in 
the types of cases they heard using the same types of multivariate 
models and odds ratios that we described in the previous appendix that 
considered differences across immigration courts. As in the foregoing 
analyses of immigration court differences, we considered the odds on 
asylum's being granted rather than the percentage granted, and we 
compared those odds by choosing a referent category (in this case a 
referent immigration judge, rather than a referent immigration court) 
and taking ratios of the odds for every other immigration judge versus 
the referent immigration judge to estimate how different the judges' 
decisions were. As before, our choice of the referent category or 
immigration judge was arbitrary from a statistical point of view, and 
we selected an immigration judge (in this case Judge #9, from New York) 
whose odds on granting asylum, or whose percentage of cases that were 
granted asylum, was around the average for all immigration judges. The 
odds ratios in the sixth column of table 17 show the unadjusted 
differences across judges in the odds on granting asylum. The odds 
ratios in the last column of table 17 show the differences across 
immigration judges in those odds after statistically controlling for 
differences among immigration judges in the country their cases came 
from, the period in which the cases were heard, whether the asylum 
seekers were represented, whether they had dependents, and whether they 
applied for asylum within a year of entering the country. 

The unadjusted odds ratios show, as the differences in percentages 
already discussed indicated, that there are substantial differences 
across immigration judges in the likelihood of granting asylum in the 
affirmative cases they hear, at least before we control for case 
characteristics that may differ from one immigration judge to another. 
To offer two examples, the unadjusted odds on granting asylum were 
higher for Judge 192 in New York than for the referent immigration 
judge, by a factor of 22.6, while the unadjusted odds on granting 
asylum were lower for Judge 160 in Miami than for the referent 
immigration judge, by a factor of 0.04. While these differences are 
sizable in themselves, they imply an even greater difference between 
Judges 192 and 160, since they imply that the former had higher odds on 
granting asylum in affirmative cases, by a factor of 22.6/0.04 = 565. 
Moreover, and more importantly, while some immigration judge 
differences are diminished by controlling for case characteristics, 
others differences are increased, and significant and sizable 
differences remain even after controls. Comparing the unadjusted and 
adjusted odds ratios indicates that the differences just mentioned are 
quite similar after controls. The full set of adjusted odds ratios, and 
the adjusted odds ratios that can be computed from them to indicate 
differences between any immigration judges in the table, indicate that 
even after we take account of differences across cases in where the 
asylum seekers came from, whether they were represented, and so on, 
some immigration judges were 10 or 20 or 30 or more times as likely as 
others to grant asylum in affirmative cases. 

Table 17: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Affirmative Cases in Their Primary Immigration Court: 

Primary Immigration court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 
198; Percent granted (3): 61.1; 
Percent denied (4): 38.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 131; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.67[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.32[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 
158; Percent granted (3): 44.8; 
Percent denied (4): 55.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 377; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.38[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.44[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 
183; Percent granted (3): 35.7; 
Percent denied (4): 64.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 140; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.94; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.27[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 
122; Percent granted (3): 33.2; 
Percent denied (4): 66.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 530; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.85; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.8. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 
255; Percent granted (3): 29.9; 
Percent denied (4): 70.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 662; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.73[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.79. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 
132; Percent granted (3): 18.5; 
Percent denied (4): 81.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 731; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.39[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.39[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Atlanta; Immigration judge code (2): 
188; Percent granted (3): 26.4; 
Percent denied (4): 73.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 91; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.61; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.67. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Atlanta; Immigration judge code (2): 
258; Percent granted (3): 9.3; 
Percent denied (4): 90.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 86; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.21[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Atlanta; Immigration judge code (2): 83; 
Percent granted (3): 6.9; 
Percent denied (4): 93.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 405; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.13[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.24[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Atlanta; Immigration judge code (2): 77; 
Percent granted (3): 5.0; 
Percent denied (4): 95.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 40; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.09[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.11[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Atlanta; Immigration judge code (2): 
250; Percent granted (3): 3.0; 
Percent denied (4): 97.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 963; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.05[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.13[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 
146; Percent granted (3): 56.5; 
Percent denied (4): 43.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 632; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.21[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.01[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 
262; Percent granted (3): 55.0; 
Percent denied (4): 45.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 120; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.08[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.1[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 
63; Percent granted (3): 52.5; 
Percent denied (4): 47.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 59; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.88[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.14. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 
116; Percent granted (3): 47.4; 
Percent denied (4): 52.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 424; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.53[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.04. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 
114; Percent granted (3): 41.1; 
Percent denied (4): 58.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 521; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.19; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.08. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 
22; Percent granted (3): 40.4; 
Percent denied (4): 59.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 532; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.15; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Bloomington; Immigration judge code (2): 
108; Percent granted (3): 33.5; 
Percent denied (4): 66.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 310; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.86; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.91. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Bloomington; Immigration judge code (2): 
143; Percent granted (3): 14.4; 
Percent denied (4): 85.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 181; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.29[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 191; 
Percent granted (3): 54.9; 
Percent denied (4): 45.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 82; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.07[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.57[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 263; 
Percent granted (3): 44.1; 
Percent denied (4): 55.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 161; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.34; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.94[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 67; 
Percent granted (3): 38.1; 
Percent denied (4): 61.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 336; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.05; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.1[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 74; 
Percent granted (3): 34.1; 
Percent denied (4): 65.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 88; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.88; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 147; 
Percent granted (3): 33.3; 
Percent denied (4): 66.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 406; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.85; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.85[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 194; 
Percent granted (3): 26.9; 
Percent denied (4): 73.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 323; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.63[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.34. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 25; 
Percent granted (3): 10.0; 
Percent denied (4): 90.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 190; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.19[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.73. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Boston; Immigration judge code (2): 245; 
Percent granted (3): 7.6; 
Percent denied (4): 92.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 144; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.14[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.31[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Chicago; Immigration judge code (2): 31; 
Percent granted (3): 45.9; 
Percent denied (4): 54.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 342; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.44[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.55[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Chicago; Immigration judge code (2): 
120; Percent granted (3): 43.2; 
Percent denied (4): 56.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 81; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.29; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.23. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Chicago; Immigration judge code (2): 39; 
Percent granted (3): 41.9; 
Percent denied (4): 58.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 434; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.23; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.56[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Chicago; Immigration judge code (2): 
203; Percent granted (3): 26.9; 
Percent denied (4): 73.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 376; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.62[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.79. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Chicago; Immigration judge code (2): 
128; Percent granted (3): 25.6; 
Percent denied (4): 74.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 481; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.58[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.16. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Chicago; Immigration judge code (2): 
224; Percent granted (3): 22.2; 
Percent denied (4): 77.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 54; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.49[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.77. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Chicago; Immigration judge code (2): 
181; Percent granted (3): 21.9; 
Percent denied (4): 78.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 288; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.48[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.63[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Dallas; Immigration judge code (2): 70; 
Percent granted (3): 53.4; 
Percent denied (4): 46.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 320; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.95[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.5[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Dallas; Immigration judge code (2): 34; 
Percent granted (3): 45.7; 
Percent denied (4): 54.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 418; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.43[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.49[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Denver; Immigration judge code (2): 52; 
Percent granted (3): 46.2; 
Percent denied (4): 53.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 251; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.36. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Denver; Immigration judge code (2): 51; 
Percent granted (3): 34.3; 
Percent denied (4): 65.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 466; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.89; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.49[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Denver; Immigration judge code (2): 126; 
Percent granted (3): 25.3; 
Percent denied (4): 74.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 423; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.58[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.95. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Detroit; Immigration judge code (2): 
202; Percent granted (3): 19.0; 
Percent denied (4): 81.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 373; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.4[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.33[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Detroit; Immigration judge code (2): 62; 
Percent granted (3): 15.8; 
Percent denied (4): 84.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 253; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.32[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.26[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Houston; Immigration judge code (2): 
259; Percent granted (3): 32.7; 
Percent denied (4): 67.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 168; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.83; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.69[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Houston; Immigration judge code (2): 
131; Percent granted (3): 28.0; 
Percent denied (4): 72.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 246; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.66[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.66[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Houston; Immigration judge code (2): 
200; Percent granted (3): 24.0; 
Percent denied (4): 76.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 229; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.54[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.51[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Houston; Immigration judge code (2): 38; 
Percent granted (3): 19.1; 
Percent denied (4): 80.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 335; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.4[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.45[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Houston; Immigration judge code (2): 
169; Percent granted (3): 9.9; 
Percent denied (4): 90.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 101; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.19[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.71. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
90; Percent granted (3): 63.4; 
Percent denied (4): 36.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 93; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.95[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.57[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
76; Percent granted (3): 58.1; 
Percent denied (4): 41.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 222; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.36[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.12[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
151; Percent granted (3): 49.7; 
Percent denied (4): 50.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 290; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.68[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.41[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
196; Percent granted (3): 49.0; 
Percent denied (4): 51.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 147; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.63[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.53[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
46; Percent granted (3): 47.6; 
Percent denied (4): 52.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 189; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.55[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.33. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
89; Percent granted (3): 45.4; 
Percent denied (4): 54.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 493; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.42[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.31[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
229; Percent granted (3): 44.5; 
Percent denied (4): 55.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 696; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.37[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.73[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
33; Percent granted (3): 41.9; 
Percent denied (4): 58.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 289; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.22; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.14. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
113; Percent granted (3): 41.1; 
Percent denied (4): 58.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 258; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.19; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.15. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
28; Percent granted (3): 37.5; 
Percent denied (4): 62.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 259; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.02; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.36. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
100; Percent granted (3): 35.1; 
Percent denied (4): 64.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 442; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.92; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.8[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
18; Percent granted (3): 35.1; 
Percent denied (4): 64.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 569; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.92; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.06[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
47; Percent granted (3): 34.8; 
Percent denied (4): 65.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 457; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.91; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.39[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
115; Percent granted (3): 34.0; 
Percent denied (4): 66.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 406; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.88; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.14. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
256; Percent granted (3): 33.9; 
Percent denied (4): 66.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 487; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.87; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.66[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
212; Percent granted (3): 33.0; 
Percent denied (4): 67.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 212; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.84; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.75. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
99; Percent granted (3): 23.5; 
Percent denied (4): 76.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 413; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.52[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.7[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
180; Percent granted (3): 23.1; 
Percent denied (4): 76.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 247; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.51[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.13[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
148; Percent granted (3): 22.5; 
Percent denied (4): 77.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 404; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.49[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.71[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
98; Percent granted (3): 21.6; 
Percent denied (4): 78.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 370; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.47[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
13; Percent granted (3): 19.7; 
Percent denied (4): 80.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 147; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.42[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.39[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
111; Percent granted (3): 18.7; 
Percent denied (4): 81.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 637; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.39[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.9. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
221; Percent granted (3): 16.7; 
Percent denied (4): 83.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 784; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.34[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.69[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
171; Percent granted (3): 16.6; 
Percent denied (4): 83.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 362; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.34[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.06. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
121; Percent granted (3): 16.3; 
Percent denied (4): 83.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 258; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.33[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.29[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
95; Percent granted (3): 14.5; 
Percent denied (4): 85.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 653; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.76. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
27; Percent granted (3): 14.0; 
Percent denied (4): 86.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 150; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.28[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.26[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
59; Percent granted (3): 13.7; 
Percent denied (4): 86.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 555; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.27[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.85. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
240; Percent granted (3): 12.5; 
Percent denied (4): 87.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 472; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.24[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.49[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
72; Percent granted (3): 10.2; 
Percent denied (4): 89.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 236; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.19[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.65[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
167; Percent granted (3): 9.8; 
Percent denied (4): 90.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 132; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.19[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
214; Percent granted (3): 8.7; 
Percent denied (4): 91.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 263; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.16[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.68. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
195; Percent granted (3): 8.2; 
Percent denied (4): 91.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 98; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.15[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.4[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
92; Percent granted (3): 7.3; 
Percent denied (4): 92.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 260; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.13[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.88. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
129; Percent granted (3): 6.4; 
Percent denied (4): 93.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 769; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.12[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.37[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 
119; Percent granted (3): 6.1; 
Percent denied (4): 93.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 214; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.11[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 234; 
Percent granted (3): 72.0; 
Percent denied (4): 28.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 649; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.36[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 10.99[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 57; 
Percent granted (3): 47.8; 
Percent denied (4): 52.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,029; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.56[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.17[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 199; 
Percent granted (3): 28.8; 
Percent denied (4): 71.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,007; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.71[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 159; 
Percent granted (3): 26.9; 
Percent denied (4): 73.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 498; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.63[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.32. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 233; 
Percent granted (3): 25.0; 
Percent denied (4): 75.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 675; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.57[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.37[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 226; 
Percent granted (3): 24.6; 
Percent denied (4): 75.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,013; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.55[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.33[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 68; 
Percent granted (3): 22.7; 
Percent denied (4): 77.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 842; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.5[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.11. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 182; 
Percent granted (3): 21.4; 
Percent denied (4): 78.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 786; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.96. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 178; 
Percent granted (3): 21.3; 
Percent denied (4): 78.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 841; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.12. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 154; 
Percent granted (3): 20.7; 
Percent denied (4): 79.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,404; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.44[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.09. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 227; 
Percent granted (3): 20.2; 
Percent denied (4): 79.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 848; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.43[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.04. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 206; 
Percent granted (3): 14.9; 
Percent denied (4): 85.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 706; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.3[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.66[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 26; 
Percent granted (3): 14.1; 
Percent denied (4): 85.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,143; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.28[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.61[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 56; 
Percent granted (3): 13.0; 
Percent denied (4): 87.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 990; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.25[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.5[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 209; 
Percent granted (3): 12.4; 
Percent denied (4): 87.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 888; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.24[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.51[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 35; 
Percent granted (3): 12.1; 
Percent denied (4): 87.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 946; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.49[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 65; 
Percent granted (3): 12.1; 
Percent denied (4): 87.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 239; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.5[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 237; 
Percent granted (3): 12.0; 
Percent denied (4): 88.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 892; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.5[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 93; 
Percent granted (3): 11.9; 
Percent denied (4): 88.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 387; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.77. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 110; 
Percent granted (3): 10.6; 
Percent denied (4): 89.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 925; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.2[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.47[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 139; 
Percent granted (3): 9.5; 
Percent denied (4): 90.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 662; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.18[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.42[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 163; 
Percent granted (3): 9.4; 
Percent denied (4): 90.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 128; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.18[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.37[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 138; 
Percent granted (3): 9.0; 
Percent denied (4): 91.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 667; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.49[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 102; 
Percent granted (3): 7.5; 
Percent denied (4): 92.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 212; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.14[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.5[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 40; 
Percent granted (3): 7.5; 
Percent denied (4): 92.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 147; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.14[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.25[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 223; 
Percent granted (3): 6.3; 
Percent denied (4): 93.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 80; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.11[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.85. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 125; 
Percent granted (3): 5.8; 
Percent denied (4): 94.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 448; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.1[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.19[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 50; 
Percent granted (3): 4.3; 
Percent denied (4): 95.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 162; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.08[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.28[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Miami; Immigration judge code (2): 160; 
Percent granted (3): 2.4; 
Percent denied (4): 97.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,002; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.04[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.09[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
192; Percent granted (3): 93.0; 
Percent denied (4): 7.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,202; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 22.63[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 25.19[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
236; Percent granted (3): 92.3; 
Percent denied (4): 7.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,379; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 20.42[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 22.09[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
265; Percent granted (3): 88.7; 
Percent denied (4): 11.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 574; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 13.32[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 12.21[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
176; Percent granted (3): 88.2; 
Percent denied (4): 11.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 323; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 12.75[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 11.06[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
248; Percent granted (3): 83.2; 
Percent denied (4): 16.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 470; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 8.42[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 7.24[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
243; Percent granted (3): 81.2; 
Percent denied (4): 18.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 133; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 7.35[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 6.01[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
21; Percent granted (3): 76.7; 
Percent denied (4): 23.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,058; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 5.61[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 5.39[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
10; Percent granted (3): 70.4; 
Percent denied (4): 29.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,181; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.05[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.93[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
64; Percent granted (3): 70.4; 
Percent denied (4): 29.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,289; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.05[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.41[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
45; Percent granted (3): 70.2; 
Percent denied (4): 29.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,220; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.85[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
184; Percent granted (3): 69.6; 
Percent denied (4): 30.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,427; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.89[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.36[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
88; Percent granted (3): 66.8; 
Percent denied (4): 33.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,628; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.43[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.68[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
91; Percent granted (3): 63.0; 
Percent denied (4): 37.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 976; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.9[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.66[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
242; Percent granted (3): 61.1; 
Percent denied (4): 38.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 858; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.67[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.47[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
230; Percent granted (3): 58.9; 
Percent denied (4): 41.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,320; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.43[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.58[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
190; Percent granted (3): 58.8; 
Percent denied (4): 41.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,628; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.43[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.7[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
156; Percent granted (3): 54.6; 
Percent denied (4): 45.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 443; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.05[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.49[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
247; Percent granted (3): 52.6; 
Percent denied (4): 47.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 901; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.89[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.18[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
37; Percent granted (3): 50.4; 
Percent denied (4): 49.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 470; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.73[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.22[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
175; Percent granted (3): 48.4; 
Percent denied (4): 51.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 527; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.59[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.58[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
105; Percent granted (3): 47.0; 
Percent denied (4): 53.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,031; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.51[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.52[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
204; Percent granted (3): 45.9; 
Percent denied (4): 54.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,312; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.44[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.78[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
232; Percent granted (3): 45.6; 
Percent denied (4): 54.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 158; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.42; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.16. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
186; Percent granted (3): 44.0; 
Percent denied (4): 56.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 922; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.34[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.28[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
130; Percent granted (3): 43.2; 
Percent denied (4): 56.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 923; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.29[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.46[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 9; 
Percent granted (3): 37.0; 
Percent denied (4): 63.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 451; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): Ref; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): Ref. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
201; Percent granted (3): 32.9; 
Percent denied (4): 67.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 532; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.83; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.83. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
127; Percent granted (3): 31.6; 
Percent denied (4): 68.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 158; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.79; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.58[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
79; Percent granted (3): 29.8; 
Percent denied (4): 70.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 851; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.72[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.78[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
253; Percent granted (3): 26.6; 
Percent denied (4): 73.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 64; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.62; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.58. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
14; Percent granted (3): 21.2; 
Percent denied (4): 78.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,229; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.48[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
152; Percent granted (3): 17.3; 
Percent denied (4): 82.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 162; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.36[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.41[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
66; Percent granted (3): 16.3; 
Percent denied (4): 83.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 141; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.33[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.67. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
197; Percent granted (3): 11.8; 
Percent denied (4): 88.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 289; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.44[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
228; Percent granted (3): 11.7; 
Percent denied (4): 88.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,063; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.22[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.24[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
173; Percent granted (3): 10.6; 
Percent denied (4): 89.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 245; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.2[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.35[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
118; Percent granted (3): 7.9; 
Percent denied (4): 92.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 277; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.15[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.18[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 
254; Percent granted (3): 2.7; 
Percent denied (4): 97.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 966; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.05[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.06[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Newark; Immigration judge code (2): 264; 
Percent granted (3): 59.4; 
Percent denied (4): 40.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 202; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.49[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.88[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Newark; Immigration judge code (2): 7; 
Percent granted (3): 53.8; 
Percent denied (4): 46.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 498; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.98[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.27[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Newark; Immigration judge code (2): 96; 
Percent granted (3): 35.2; 
Percent denied (4): 64.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 727; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.92; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.22. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Newark; Immigration judge code (2): 11; 
Percent granted (3): 29.7; 
Percent denied (4): 70.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 462; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.72[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.02. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Newark; Immigration judge code (2): 177; 
Percent granted (3): 21.7; 
Percent denied (4): 78.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 203; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.47[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.87. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Newark; Immigration judge code (2): 69; 
Percent granted (3): 19.1; 
Percent denied (4): 80.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 383; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.4[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Newark; Immigration judge code (2): 43; 
Percent granted (3): 13.4; 
Percent denied (4): 86.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 462; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.26[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.52[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Orlando; Immigration judge code (2): 78; 
Percent granted (3): 68.0; 
Percent denied (4): 32.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 50; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.61[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 5.57[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Orlando; Immigration judge code (2): 
220; Percent granted (3): 67.1; 
Percent denied (4): 32.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 258; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 5.11[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Orlando; Immigration judge code (2): 
215; Percent granted (3): 39.8; 
Percent denied (4): 60.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,162; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.13; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.9[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Orlando; Immigration judge code (2): 
213; Percent granted (3): 37.5; 
Percent denied (4): 62.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 357; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.02; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.1[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Philadelphia; Immigration judge code 
(2): 187; Percent granted (3): 53.8; 
Percent denied (4): 46.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 199; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.98[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.83[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Philadelphia; Immigration judge code 
(2): 32; Percent granted (3): 28.1; 
Percent denied (4): 71.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 402; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.66[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.57[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Philadelphia; Immigration judge code 
(2): 217; Percent granted (3): 24.2; 
Percent denied (4): 75.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 393; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.54[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.62[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Philadelphia; Immigration judge code 
(2): 60; Percent granted (3): 11.5; 
Percent denied (4): 88.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 546; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.22[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.29[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 
107; Percent granted (3): 40.4; 
Percent denied (4): 59.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 161; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.15; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.22. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 
207; Percent granted (3): 34.8; 
Percent denied (4): 65.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 135; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.91; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.82. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 
101; Percent granted (3): 29.8; 
Percent denied (4): 70.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 198; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.72; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.95. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 
15; Percent granted (3): 24.9; 
Percent denied (4): 75.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 229; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.56[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.87. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 
1; Percent granted (3): 19.6; 
Percent denied (4): 80.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 275; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.42[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.68. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 
137; Percent granted (3): 17.2; 
Percent denied (4): 82.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 116; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.35[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.3[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 162; Percent granted (3): 74.2; 
Percent denied (4): 25.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 558; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.89[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 11.63[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 149; Percent granted (3): 70.8; 
Percent denied (4): 29.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 627; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.13[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 9.11[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 53; Percent granted (3): 66.3; 
Percent denied (4): 33.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 519; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.34[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 6.36[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 29; Percent granted (3): 64.7; 
Percent denied (4): 35.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 652; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.12[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 6.85[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 150; Percent granted (3): 51.8; 
Percent denied (4): 48.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 566; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.83[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.09[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 6; Percent granted (3): 51.4; 
Percent denied (4): 48.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 765; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.8[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 5.58[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 24; Percent granted (3): 47.7; 
Percent denied (4): 52.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 880; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.55[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.02[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 166; Percent granted (3): 46.0; 
Percent denied (4): 54.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 187; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.45[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.94[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 165; Percent granted (3): 43.0; 
Percent denied (4): 57.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 453; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.29; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.45[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 185; Percent granted (3): 43.0; 
Percent denied (4): 57.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 791; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.28[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.67[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 246; Percent granted (3): 41.7; 
Percent denied (4): 58.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 609; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.22; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.83[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 153; Percent granted (3): 38.8; 
Percent denied (4): 61.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 121; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.08; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.52. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 71; Percent granted (3): 38.5; 
Percent denied (4): 61.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 296; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.07; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.48[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 19; Percent granted (3): 36.8; 
Percent denied (4): 63.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 57; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.99; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.72[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 20; Percent granted (3): 36.2; 
Percent denied (4): 63.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 787; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.97; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.11[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 172; Percent granted (3): 32.3; 
Percent denied (4): 67.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 328; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.81; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.87[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 235; Percent granted (3): 30.4; 
Percent denied (4): 69.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 79; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.74; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.09. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 49; Percent granted (3): 25.4; 
Percent denied (4): 74.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 142; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.58[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.57[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 87; Percent granted (3): 23.5; 
Percent denied (4): 76.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 51; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.52; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.67. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 222; Percent granted (3): 22.7; 
Percent denied (4): 77.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 256; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.5[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.71. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 252; Percent granted (3): 15.3; 
Percent denied (4): 84.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 98; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.31[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.47[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 17; Percent granted (3): 14.4; 
Percent denied (4): 85.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 450; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.51[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code 
(2): 12; Percent granted (3): 11.7; 
Percent denied (4): 88.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 137; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.22[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.3[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Seattle; Immigration judge code (2): 
140; Percent granted (3): 38.4; 
Percent denied (4): 61.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 401; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.06; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.96[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Seattle; Immigration judge code (2): 94; 
Percent granted (3): 18.6; 
Percent denied (4): 81.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 113; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.39[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.44[A]. 

Primary Immigration court (1): Seattle; Immigration judge code (2): 
142; Percent granted (3): 8.9; 
Percent denied (4): 91.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 90; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.18[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[A] Indicates immigration judge is statistically significantly 
different from referent judge. 

[End of table] 

In Figure 13 and table 18 we show the percentage of defensive cases 
that were granted and denied for all immigration judges from the 19 
different immigration courts who heard more than 50 defensive asylum 
cases over the period we are considering, again with the different 
immigration judges coded uniquely and arranged according to their 
primary immigration court, or the immigration court in which they heard 
the majority of their cases. As in figure 5 and table 17 to simplify 
our presentation and subsequent analyses and to avoid calculating 
percentages based on small numbers of cases, we excluded from the 
figure and table immigration judges who heard fewer than 50 defensive 
cases, and cases heard by immigration judges other than their primary 
immigration court. The defensive cases heard by the 195 immigration 
judges in their primary immigration courts that are represented in the 
figure and the table collectively account for over 88 percent of all 
defensive cases heard by all immigration judges in the 19 immigration 
courts. As in table 17, we show differences not only in term of 
percentages granted and denied but also with unadjusted and adjusted 
odds ratios, the latter of which take into account differences among 
immigration judges in the country their cases came from, the period in 
which the cases were heard, whether the asylum seekers were 
represented, whether they had dependents, and whether they applied for 
asylum within a year of entering the country. In our logistic 
regression models for defensive cases, we also control for whether the 
asylum seeker was currently or had ever been detained. 

As with the affirmative cases, figure 13 and table 18 reveal 
substantial differences in the percentage of defensive cases that were 
granted asylum across immigration judges overall and across immigration 
judges in the same immigration courts. Some immigration judges granted 
asylum to fewer than 6 percent of the defensive cases they heard, while 
others granted asylum to more than 60 percent of their cases, and the 
variation within immigration courts was often pronounced. The 
percentages of defensive cases granted asylum ranged across immigration 
judges from 2 percent to 39 percent in Los Angeles and from 9 percent 
to 58 percent in San Francisco, and in other immigration courts the 
ranges were often as pronounced as these. 

Figure 13: Immigration Judge Asylum Grant Rates, Defensive Cases, by 
Immigration Court: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: Each line within a court represents the average grant rate for a 
single immigration judge. 

[End of figure] 

Moreover, the adjusted odds ratios shown in the last column of table 18 
show that differences persist, albeit at a somewhat smaller level than 
for affirmative cases, even after controls for differences in the 
source country and types of cases heard by the different immigration 
judges. Some immigration judges, after controls, were 4 or 5 or more 
than 5 times as likely to grant asylum as the referent immigration 
judge, while many others were only one-third (i.e., odds ratio = 0.33) 
to one-fifth (odds ratio = 0.20) as likely as the referent immigration 
judge to grant asylum. 

Table 18: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Defensive Cases in Their Primary Immigration Court: 

Primary court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 198; Percent 
granted (3): 68.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 31.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 82; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 6.13[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 7.17[A]. 

Primary court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 183; Percent 
granted (3): 38.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 61.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 199; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.8[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.11[A]. 

Primary court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 158; Percent 
granted (3): 35.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 64.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 148; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.59; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.16. 

Primary court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 122; Percent 
granted (3): 25.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 74.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 467; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.97; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.84. 

Primary court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 32; Percent 
granted (3): 25.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 74.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 139; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.96; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.18. 

Primary court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 255; Percent 
granted (3): 21.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 78.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 330; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.78; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.43[A]. 

Primary court (1): Arlington; Immigration judge code (2): 132; Percent 
granted (3): 15.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 84.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 269; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.53[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.33[A]. 

Primary court (1): Atlanta; 
Immigration judge code (2): 188; Percent granted (3): 5.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 94.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 72; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.11[A]. 

Primary court (1): Atlanta; 
Immigration judge code (2): 83; Percent granted (3): 2.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 97.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 181; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.08[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.04[A]. 

Primary court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 146; Percent 
granted (3): 38.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 61.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 209; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.77[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.27. 

Primary court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 262; Percent 
granted (3): 34.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 65.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 137; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.49; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.36[A]. 

Primary court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 114; Percent 
granted (3): 32.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 67.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 337; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.36; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.11. 

Primary court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 116; Percent 
granted (3): 29.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 70.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 167; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.18; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.53[A]. 

Primary court (1): Baltimore; Immigration judge code (2): 22; Percent 
granted (3): 28.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 72.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 264; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.11; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.66. 

Primary court (1): Bloomington; Immigration judge code (2): 108; 
Percent granted (3): 16.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 83.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 284; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.58[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.27[A]. 

Primary court (1): Bloomington; Immigration judge code (2): 143; 
Percent granted (3): 10.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 158; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.34[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.16[A]. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 263; Percent granted (3): 35.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 64.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 114; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.54; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.67. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 67; Percent granted (3): 28.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 71.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 366; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.11; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.29. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 191; Percent granted (3): 26.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 74.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 150; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): Ref; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): Ref. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 194; Percent granted (3): 22.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 78.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 254; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.8; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.87. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 164; Percent granted (3): 18.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 81.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 53; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.66; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.63. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 74; Percent granted (3): 18.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 82.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 100; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.62; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.54. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 147; Percent granted (3): 17.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 82.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 407; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.6[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.7. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 245; Percent granted (3): 11.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 126; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.38[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.27[A]. 

Primary court (1): Boston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 25; Percent granted (3): 10.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 115; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.33[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.47[A]. 

Primary court (1): Chicago; 
Immigration judge code (2): 31; Percent granted (3): 34.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 65.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 303; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.49; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.18. 

Primary court (1): Chicago; 
Immigration judge code (2): 120; Percent granted (3): 30.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 69.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 94; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.27; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.96. 

Primary court (1): Chicago; 
Immigration judge code (2): 39; Percent granted (3): 30.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 69.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 309; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.26; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.82. 

Primary court (1): Chicago; 
Immigration judge code (2): 181; Percent granted (3): 25.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 74.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 286; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.98; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.65. 

Primary court (1): Chicago; 
Immigration judge code (2): 224; Percent granted (3): 25.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 74.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 67; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.97; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.66. 

Primary court (1): Chicago; 
Immigration judge code (2): 4; Percent granted (3): 20.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 79.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 73; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.74; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.58. 

Primary court (1): Chicago; 
Immigration judge code (2): 128; Percent granted (3): 19.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 80.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 314; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.7; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.61[A]. 

Primary court (1): Chicago ; Immigration judge code (2): 203; Percent 
granted (3): 18.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 82.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 333; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.63[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.48[A]. 

Primary court (1): Dallas; 
Immigration judge code (2): 70; Percent granted (3): 31.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 69.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 203; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.28; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.29. 

Primary court (1): Dallas; 
Immigration judge code (2): 44; Percent granted (3): 21.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 78.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 70; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.78; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.84. 

Primary court (1): Dallas; 
Immigration judge code (2): 34; Percent granted (3): 20.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 79.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 266; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.74; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.49[A]. 

Primary court (1): Dallas; 
Immigration judge code (2): 50; Percent granted (3): 7.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 79; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.11[A]. 

Primary court (1): Denver; 
Immigration judge code (2): 52; Percent granted (3): 26.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 73.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 138; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1; Adjusted 
odds ratios (7): 0.88. 

Primary court (1): Denver; 
Immigration judge code (2): 51; Percent granted (3): 18.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 81.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 144; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.63; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.7. 

Primary court (1): Denver; 
Immigration judge code (2): 126; Percent granted (3): 14.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 85.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 246; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.47[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.67. 

Primary court (1): Detroit; 
Immigration judge code (2): 62; Percent granted (3): 15.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 84.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 301; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.54[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.23[A]. 

Primary court (1): Detroit; 
Immigration judge code (2): 202; Percent granted (3): 12.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 87.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 287; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.4[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.14[A]. 

Primary court (1): Detroit; 
Immigration judge code (2): 168; Percent granted (3): 1.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 98.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 58; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.05[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.02[A]. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 131; Percent granted (3): 24.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 75.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 233; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.92; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.17[A]. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 119; Percent granted (3): 12.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 87.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 87; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.41[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.58. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 200; Percent granted (3): 12.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 87.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 230; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.39[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 38; Percent granted (3): 11.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 462; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.36[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.65. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 30; Percent granted (3): 7.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 90; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.24[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.35a. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 169; Percent granted (3): 7.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 92; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.67. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 259; Percent granted (3): 5.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 94.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 339; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.18[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.25[A]. 

Primary court (1): Houston; 
Immigration judge code (2): 195; Percent granted (3): 4.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 96.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 272; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.12[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.17[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 89; Percent 
granted (3): 38.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 61.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 160; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.8[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.12[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 33; Percent 
granted (3): 36.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 64.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 114; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.6; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.73. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 76; Percent 
granted (3): 35.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 64.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 81; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.59; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.62. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 18; Percent 
granted (3): 34.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 65.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 183; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.49; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.23[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 90; Percent 
granted (3): 33.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 66.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 42; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.42; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.06. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 100; 
Percent granted (3): 29.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 71.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 93; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.16; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.69. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 113; 
Percent granted (3): 27.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 72.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 80; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.08; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.21. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 229; 
Percent granted (3): 27.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 73.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 141; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.05; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.68. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 151; 
Percent granted (3): 26.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 73.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 88; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.01; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.76. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 115; 
Percent granted (3): 25.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 74.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 124; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.99; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.11. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 180; 
Percent granted (3): 25.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 74.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 119; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.96; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.89[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 95; Percent 
granted (3): 22.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 77.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 101; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.84; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.89. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 46; Percent 
granted (3): 21.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 78.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 83; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.79; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.31. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 256; 
Percent granted (3): 20.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 79.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 235; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.75; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.37. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 212; 
Percent granted (3): 20.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 79.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 68; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.74; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.99. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 47; Percent 
granted (3): 18.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 81.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 166; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.65; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.65. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 171; 
Percent granted (3): 16.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 83.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 61; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.56; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.79. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 28; Percent 
granted (3): 16.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 83.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 56; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.55; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.54. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 148; 
Percent granted (3): 15.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 84.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 161; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.52[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.61. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 221; 
Percent granted (3): 15.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 84.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 219; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.52[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.63. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 196; 
Percent granted (3): 14.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 85.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 56; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.47; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 98; Percent 
granted (3): 12.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 87.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 111; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.41[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.57. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 99; Percent 
granted (3): 11.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 159; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.39[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.38[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 129; 
Percent granted (3): 10.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 119; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.35[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.43[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 111; 
Percent granted (3): 10.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 157; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.35[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.53. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 59; Percent 
granted (3): 8.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 91.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 93; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.27[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.44. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 240; 
Percent granted (3): 7.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 185; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.35[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 92; Percent 
granted (3): 7.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 82; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.22[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.45. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 27; Percent 
granted (3): 5.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 94.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 135; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.16[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.24[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 2; Percent 
granted (3): 4.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 95.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 68; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.13[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.19[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 121; 
Percent granted (3): 3.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 96.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 83; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.11[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.11[A]. 

Primary court (1): Los Angeles; Immigration judge code (2): 13; Percent 
granted (3): 2.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 97.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 93; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.06[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.09[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 234; Percent granted (3): 61.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 38.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 295; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.58[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 5.57[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 57; Percent granted (3): 37.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 62.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 411; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.72[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.59[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 199; Percent granted (3): 24.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 75.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 309; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.91; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.38. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 233; Percent granted (3): 21.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 78.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 397; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.8; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.05. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 68; Percent granted (3): 18.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 81.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 477; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.64[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.88. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 226; Percent granted (3): 17.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 82.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 550; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.62[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.89. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 178; Percent granted (3): 16.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 83.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 814; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.56[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.8. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 159; Percent granted (3): 15.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 85.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 472; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.5[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.8. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 56; Percent granted (3): 14.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 85.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 563; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.49[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.56[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 182; Percent granted (3): 13.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 86.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 563; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.66. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 227; Percent granted (3): 13.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 86.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 482; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.46[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 26; Percent granted (3): 13.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 86.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 458; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.45[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.71. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 154; Percent granted (3): 12.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 87.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 406; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.4[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.51[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 102; Percent granted (3): 11.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 175; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.37[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.77. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 93; Percent granted (3): 11.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 180; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.36[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.44[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 35; Percent granted (3): 9.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 90.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 513; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.3[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.42[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 110; Percent granted (3): 9.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 90.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 735; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.4[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 189; Percent granted (3): 8.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 91.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 239; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.27[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.91. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 206; Percent granted (3): 7.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 562; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.23[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.29[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 138; Percent granted (3): 7.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 513; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.22[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.44[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 223; Percent granted (3): 7.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 42; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.22[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.64. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 139; Percent granted (3): 6.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 93.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 418; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.2[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.21[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 209; Percent granted (3): 5.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 94.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 762; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.21[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 65; Percent granted (3): 5.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 94.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 124; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.17[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.21[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 237; Percent granted (3): 5.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 94.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 632; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.16[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.19[A]. 

Primary court (1): Miami; 
Immigration judge code (2): 160; Percent granted (3): 3.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 96.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 523; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.1[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.11[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 176; Percent 
granted (3): 72.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 27.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 322; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 7.45[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.13[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 248; Percent 
granted (3): 67.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 32.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 527; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 5.82[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.43[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 236; Percent 
granted (3): 62.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 37.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,012; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.67[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.09[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 192; Percent 
granted (3): 61.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 38.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,290; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 4.54[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.65[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 242; Percent 
granted (3): 57.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 42.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 666; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.8[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.38[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 21; Percent 
granted (3): 56.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 43.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 754; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.76[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.25[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 64; Percent 
granted (3): 55.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 44.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 746; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.51[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.22[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 265; Percent 
granted (3): 54.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 45.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 423; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.86[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 45; Percent 
granted (3): 51.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 48.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 774; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.04[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.81[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 88; Percent 
granted (3): 51.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 48.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 746; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.05[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.97[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 243; Percent 
granted (3): 47.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 52.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 118; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.57[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.31. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 184; Percent 
granted (3): 45.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 54.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,203; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.4[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.1[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 91; Percent 
granted (3): 43.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 56.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 345; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.19[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.25. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 190; Percent 
granted (3): 42.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 57.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 973; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.1[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.33. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 130; Percent 
granted (3): 39.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 60.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 282; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.85[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.63[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 156; Percent 
granted (3): 36.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 63.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 130; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.61; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.46. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 10; Percent 
granted (3): 36.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 63.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 905; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.61[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.46. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 204; Percent 
granted (3): 35.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 64.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,083; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.6[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.32. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 230; Percent 
granted (3): 35.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 64.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 976; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.56[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.23. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 105; Percent 
granted (3): 31.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 68.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 477; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.33; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.89. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 247; Percent 
granted (3): 30.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 69.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 347; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.23; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.83. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 186; Percent 
granted (3): 26.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 73.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 543; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.01; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 167; Percent 
granted (3): 23.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 76.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 130; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.89; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.51[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 232; Percent 
granted (3): 22.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 77.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 117; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.81; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.44[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 201; Percent 
granted (3): 20.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 79.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 967; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.72; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.43[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 175; Percent 
granted (3): 19.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 80.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 556; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.62[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 79; Percent 
granted (3): 16.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 83.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 761; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.55[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.45[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 253; Percent 
granted (3): 15.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 84.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 224; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.53[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.31[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 9; Percent 
granted (3): 14.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 85.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 895; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.47[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.28[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 14; Percent 
granted (3): 13.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 86.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 835; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.45[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.28[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 127; Percent 
granted (3): 11.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 111; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.38[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.19[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 66; Percent 
granted (3): 11.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 105; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.37[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.48[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 197; Percent 
granted (3): 9.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 90.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 150; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.41[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 228; Percent 
granted (3): 8.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 91.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 1,102; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.27[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.19[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 125; Percent 
granted (3): 7.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 92.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 631; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.24[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.14[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 118; Percent 
granted (3): 6.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 94.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 382; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.18[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.23[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 173; Percent 
granted (3): 3.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 96.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 76; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.12[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.15[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 250; Percent 
granted (3): 3.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 97.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 366; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.09[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.14[A]. 

Primary court (1): New York; Immigration judge code (2): 254; Percent 
granted (3): 2.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 97.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 423; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.07[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.05[A]. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 264; Percent granted (3): 46.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 53.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 230; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.48[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.38[A]. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 7; Percent granted (3): 39.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 60.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 281; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.83[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.55. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 11; Percent granted (3): 28.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 71.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 361; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.12; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.94. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 73; Percent granted (3): 23.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 76.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 43; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.86; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.58. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 96; Percent granted (3): 18.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 81.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 349; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.66; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.48[A]. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 177; Percent granted (3): 16.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 83.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 92; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.55; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.35[A]. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 43; Percent granted (3): 12.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 87.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 318; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.41[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.34[A]. 

Primary court (1): Newark; 
Immigration judge code (2): 69; Percent granted (3): 10.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 343; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.33[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.26[A]. 

Primary court (1): Orlando; 
Immigration judge code (2): 220; Percent granted (3): 55.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 44.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 93; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.61[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.46[A]. 

Primary court (1): Orlando; 
Immigration judge code (2): 215; Percent granted (3): 39.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 60.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 340; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.87[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.74[A]. 

Primary court (1): Orlando; 
Immigration judge code (2): 213; Percent granted (3): 19.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 80.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 123; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.81. 

Primary court (1): Philadelphia; Immigration judge code (2): 37; 
Percent granted (3): 17.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 82.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 313; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.61[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.59[A]. 

Primary court (1): Philadelphia; Immigration judge code (2): 217; 
Percent granted (3): 9.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 90.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 285; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.31[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.3[A]. 

Primary court (1): Philadelphia; Immigration judge code (2): 60; 
Percent granted (3): 9.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 90.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 356; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.29[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.23[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 107; Percent 
granted (3): 33.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 66.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 104; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.44; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.48. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 207; Percent 
granted (3): 29.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 70.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 138; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.2; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.18. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 1; Percent 
granted (3): 21.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 78.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 240; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.77; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.56[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 101; Percent 
granted (3): 19.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 80.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 113; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.69; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.74. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 123; Percent 
granted (3): 19.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 80.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 125; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.68; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.6. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 15; Percent 
granted (3): 19.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 81.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 153; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.67; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.52[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 84; Percent 
granted (3): 11.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 127; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.35[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.43[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Diego; Immigration judge code (2): 137; Percent 
granted (3): 10.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 139; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.34[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.3[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 149; 
Percent granted (3): 57.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 42.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 166; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.9[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.11[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 162; 
Percent granted (3): 55.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 44.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 198; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.49[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.22[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 19; 
Percent granted (3): 52.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 47.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 155; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.12[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 8.94[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 6; 
Percent granted (3): 51.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 48.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 181; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 3.01[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.69[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 166; 
Percent granted (3): 50.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 49.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 323; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.9[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.44[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 29; 
Percent granted (3): 49.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 51.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 210; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.74[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 4.64[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 53; 
Percent granted (3): 46.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 53.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 304; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.49[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 5.35[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 165; 
Percent granted (3): 41.8; 
Percent Denied (4): 58.2; 
Total number of cases (5): 134; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 2.04[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.38[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 150; 
Percent granted (3): 40.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 59.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 335; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.97[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 3.97[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 185; 
Percent granted (3): 36.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 63.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 212; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.62[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.53[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 24; 
Percent granted (3): 32.5; 
Percent Denied (4): 67.5; 
Total number of cases (5): 397; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.37; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 2.65[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 246; 
Percent granted (3): 30.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 70.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 260; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.22; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.62. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 172; 
Percent granted (3): 26.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 73.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 90; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 1.03; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.79. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 153; 
Percent granted (3): 23.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 76.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 46; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.89; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.38. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 20; 
Percent granted (3): 22.6; 
Percent Denied (4): 77.4; 
Total number of cases (5): 455; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.83; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.44. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 187; 
Percent granted (3): 20.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 79.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 91; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.75; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.49[A]. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 49; 
Percent granted (3): 20.0; 
Percent Denied (4): 80.0; 
Total number of cases (5): 45; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.71; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 1.1. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 12; 
Percent granted (3): 13.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 86.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 97; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.44[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.49. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 222; 
Percent granted (3): 10.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 59; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.32[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.42. 

Primary court (1): San Francisco; Immigration judge code (2): 17; 
Percent granted (3): 8.7; 
Percent Denied (4): 91.3; 
Total number of cases (5): 344; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.27[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.41[A]. 

Primary court (1): Seattle; 
Immigration judge code (2): 140; Percent granted (3): 18.4; 
Percent Denied (4): 81.6; 
Total number of cases (5): 745; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.64[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.72. 

Primary court (1): Seattle; 
Immigration judge code (2): 249; Percent granted (3): 14.1; 
Percent Denied (4): 85.9; 
Total number of cases (5): 85; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.47[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.47. 

Primary court (1): Seattle; 
Immigration judge code (2): 94; Percent granted (3): 11.3; 
Percent Denied (4): 88.7; 
Total number of cases (5): 292; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.36[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.29[A]. 

Primary court (1): Seattle; 
Immigration judge code (2): 71; Percent granted (3): 10.2; 
Percent Denied (4): 89.8; 
Total number of cases (5): 98; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.32[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.39[A]. 

Primary court (1): Seattle; 
Immigration judge code (2): 142; Percent granted (3): 8.9; 
Percent Denied (4): 91.1; 
Total number of cases (5): 180; Unadjusted odds ratios (6): 0.28[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios (7): 0.27[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

[A] Indicates immigration judge is statistically significantly 
different from referent immigration judge. 

[End of table] 

Differences in Grant and Denial Rates as a Function of Characteristics 
of the Immigration Judge: 

In a separate set of analyses we also investigated how outcomes varied 
based on the characteristics of the immigration judges. Tables 19 and 
20, below, show how the percentages of affirmative and defensive cases 
that were granted and denied differed depending on immigration judges' 
age, caseload, gender, length of service as an immigration judge, race/ 
ethnicity, veteran preference, prior public immigration experience, 
prior experience doing immigration work for a nonprofit organization, 
and whether the immigration judge was appointed by a Republican or 
Democratic president. We assessed the statistical significance of the 
differences across the categories of these variables by using logistic 
regression models, which yielded the unadjusted odds ratios given in 
the penultimate columns of these tables. The values of these odds 
ratios tell us how different immigration judges in one particular 
category of each variable were from the immigration judges in the 
referent category for that variable--for example, how different male 
immigration judges are from female immigration judges--when each 
variable is considered one at a time and all other variables or 
immigration judge characteristics are ignored. In the last column of 
tables 19 and 20, we provide adjusted odds ratios that re-estimate the 
effects of these factors (or the differences across categories used to 
represent them), when all factors are considered simultaneously and 
when the same case characteristics used in the foregoing analyses 
(i.e., nationality, representation, etc.) were controlled. In these 
models we adjusted the standard errors for possible clustering at the 
immigration judge level. This is reflected in the statistical 
significance of the result. 

Table 19 shows that, with respect to affirmative cases, the immigration 
judge characteristics that had significant effects on asylum decisions, 
at least when we considered each characteristic one at a time, were 
gender, length of service as an immigration judge, veterans preference, 
prior public immigration experience, and prior experience doing 
immigration work for a non-profit organization. When all of the 
immigration judge characteristics were considered in a multivariate 
model, however, the ones that emerged as significant were gender and 
length of service as an immigration judge. Net of other factors, male 
immigration judges were less likely than female immigration judges to 
grant asylum in affirmative cases, by a factor of 0.6. Immigration 
judges with 3 ½ to 10 years of service were more likely than less 
experienced immigration judges to grant asylum, by a factor of 1.25. 
Immigration judges with more than 10 years of service were also 
somewhat more likely than the least experienced immigration judges to 
grant asylum, but here the difference was not statistically 
significant. 

Table 20 shows that, with respect to defensive cases, the immigration 
judge characteristics that had significant effects on asylum decisions 
when we considered each characteristic one at a time, were caseload, 
gender, length of service, veterans preference, and prior experience 
doing immigration work for a non-profit organization. When all of the 
immigration judge characteristics were considered in a multivariate 
model for defensive cases, the only factor that emerged as significant 
was immigration judge's gender. Here too, as with affirmative cases, 
male immigration judges were less likely to grant asylum than female 
immigration judges, by a factor of 0.6. None of the other immigration 
judge characteristics had statistically significant effects. Clearly, 
differences in the immigration judge characteristics that we could 
assess do not suffice to account for the very large differences across 
immigration judges in the likelihood of granting asylum that were shown 
in tables 17 and 18. 

Table 19: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Affirmative Cases in their Primary Immigration Court, by 
Immigration Judge Characteristics: 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Age <50; Percentage granted: 
34.9; 
Percentage denied: 65.1; 
Total number of cases: 41,469; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Age >=50; Percentage granted: 
38.8; 
Percentage denied: 61.2; 
Total number of cases: 53,196; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.18; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 1.08. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Caseload : 0-29; Percentage 
granted: 34.5; 
Percentage denied: 65.5; 
Total number of cases: 23,219; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Caseload: 30-64; Percentage 
granted: 36.4; 
Percentage denied: 63.6; 
Total number of cases: 47,283; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.09; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 0.9. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Caseload: 65+; Percentage 
granted: 41.0; 
Percentage denied: 59.0; 
Total number of cases: 24,163; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.32; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 1.08. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Female; Percentage granted: 
48.2; 
Percentage denied: 51.8; 
Total number of cases: 36,746; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Male; Percentage granted: 
30.1; 
Percentage denied: 69.9; 
Total number of cases: 57,919; Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.46[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 0.61[A]. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Experience 0 - 3 ½ years; 
Percentage granted: 28.9; 
Percentage denied: 71.1; 
Total number of cases: 25,205; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Experience 3 ½ - 10 years; 
Percentage granted: 40.7; 
Percentage denied: 59.3; 
Total number of cases: 42,796; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.69[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 1.25[A]. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Experience more than 10 years; 
Percentage granted: 39.2; 
Percentage denied: 60.8; 
Total number of cases: 26,664; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.59[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 1.19. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Other race/ethnicity; 
Percentage granted: 35.5; 
Percentage denied: 64.5; 
Total number of cases: 27,210; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: White, nonHispanic; Percentage 
granted: 37.8; 
Percentage denied: 62.2; 
Total number of cases: 67,455; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.1; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 0.99. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: No veterans preference; 
Percentage granted: 38.7; 
Percentage denied: 61.3; 
Total number of cases: 81,834; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Veterans preference; 
Percentage granted: 27.2; 
Percentage denied: 72.8; 
Total number of cases: 12,831; Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.59[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 0.91. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: No prior government 
immigration experience; Percentage granted: 41.9; 
Percentage denied: 58.1; 
Total number of cases: 46,847; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Prior government immigration 
experience; Percentage granted: 32.4; 
Percentage denied: 67.6; 
Total number of cases: 47,818; Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.67[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 0.84. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: No non profit immigration 
experience; Percentage granted: 33.3; 
Percentage denied: 66.7; 
Total number of cases: 76,323; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Non profit immigration 
experience; Percentage granted: 53.1; 
Percentage denied: 46.9; 
Total number of cases: 18,342; Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.26[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 1.49. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Appointed during Democratic 
presidential administration; Percentage granted: 36.3; 
Percentage denied: 63.7; 
Total number of cases: 68,878; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Appointed during Republican 
presidential administration; Percentage granted: 39.2; 
Percentage denied: 60.8; 
Total number of cases: 25,787; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.13; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 1.13. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: The adjusted model includes: claimant nationality, if there was 
representation, the period when case was decided, if claimant had 
dependents, and if the applicant filed within 1 year of entry. 

[A] Statistically significant difference from referent category. (Note: 
standard errors have been adjusted for possible clustering of the 
immigration judges.) 

[End of table] 

Table 20: Percentages and Odds Ratios for Immigration Judges Hearing 50 
or More Defensive Cases in their Primary Immigration Court, by 
Immigration Judge Characteristics: 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Age <50; Percent granted: 
24.4; 
Percent denied: 75.6; 
Total number of cases: 25,522; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Age >=50; Percent granted: 
27.5; 
Percent denied: 72.5; 
Total number of cases: 32,954; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.18; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 1.11. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Caseload : 0-29; Percent 
granted: 21.8; 
Percent denied: 78.2; 
Total number of cases: 15,893; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Caseload: 30-64; Percent 
granted: 24.6; 
Percent denied: 75.4; 
Total number of cases: 26,515; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.17; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 0.86. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Caseload: 65+; Percent 
granted: 33.1; 
Percent denied: 66.9; 
Total number of cases: 16,068; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.78[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 1.02. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Female; Percent granted: 34.9; 
Percent denied: 65.1; 
Total number of cases: 22,440; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Male; Percent granted: 20.7; 
Percent denied: 79.3; 
Total number of cases: 36,036; Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.49a; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 0.58[A]. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Experience 0 - 3 ½ years; 
Percent granted: 20.4; 
Percent denied: 79.6; 
Total number of cases: 13,729; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Experience 3 ½ - 10 years; 
Percent granted: 26.8; 
Percent denied: 73.2; 
Total number of cases: 26,392; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.43[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 1.09. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Experience more than 10 years; 
Percent granted: 29.6; 
Percent denied: 70.4; 
Total number of cases: 18,355; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.65[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 1.21. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Other race/ethnicity; Percent 
granted: 26.5; 
Percent denied: 73.5; 
Total number of cases: 14,849; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: White, nonHispanic; Percent 
granted: 26.1; 
Percent denied: 73.9; 
Total number of cases: 43,627; Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.98; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 0.91. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: No veterans preference; 
Percent granted: 27.2; 
Percent denied: 72.8; 
Total number of cases: 51,256; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Veterans preference; Percent 
granted: 18.6; 
Percent denied: 81.4; 
Total number of cases: 7,220; Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.61[A]; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 0.88. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: No prior government 
immigration experience; Percent granted: 29.5; 
Percent denied: 70.5; 
Total number of cases: 28,759; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Prior government immigration 
experience; Percent granted: 23; 
Percent denied: 77; 
Total number of cases: 29,717; Unadjusted odds ratios: 0.71; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 0.82. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: No non profit immigration 
experience; Percent granted: 23.1; 
Percent denied: 76.9; 
Total number of cases: 46,475; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Non profit immigration 
experience; Percent granted: 38; 
Percent denied: 62; 
Total number of cases: 12,001; Unadjusted odds ratios: 2.04[A]; 
Adjusted odds ratios: 1.36. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Appointed during Democratic 
presidential administration; Percent granted: 25; 
Percent denied: 75; 
Total number of cases: 39,941; Unadjusted odds ratios: Ref; Adjusted 
odds ratios: Ref. 

Factor Immigration judge characteristic: Appointed during Republican 
presidential administration; Percent granted: 28.7; 
Percent denied: 71.3; 
Total number of cases: 18,535; Unadjusted odds ratios: 1.21; Adjusted 
odds ratios: 1.37. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: The adjusted model includes: claimant nationality, if there was 
representation, period when case was decided, if claimant had 
dependents, if the applicant filed within 1 year of entry, and if 
applicant was ever detained. 

[A] Statistically significant difference from referent category . 
(Note: standard errors have been adjusted for possible clustering of 
the immigration judges). 

[End of table] 

Logistic Regression Analyses of Grant and Denial Rates for Immigration 
Judges from the Same Immigration Courts Handling Asylum Cases from the 
Same Countries: 

In our final set of analyses, we focused on asylum outcomes in six 
country-immigration court combinations (1) affirmative Chinese cases in 
New York, (2) affirmative Chinese cases in Los Angeles, (3) affirmative 
Haitian case in Miami, (4) affirmative Indian cases in San Francisco, 
(5) defensive Chinese cases in New York, and (6) defensive Haitian 
cases in Miami. We selected these country-immigration court 
combinations because they had a sufficiently large number of 
immigration judges rendering a sufficiently large number of decisions 
to produce reliable estimates in our logistic regression analyses. We 
examined differences across immigration judges within the same 
immigration court in judges' likelihood of granting asylum to 
applicants of the same nationality. Because the number of immigration 
judges in these analyses ranged from only 25 to 47, we looked at the 
effect of immigration judge characteristics one at a time, while 
controlling for the full set of claimant characteristics. The results 
of these analyses are summarized in table 21, below. Immigration judges 
used in the analysis had seen at least 20 cases during this time 
period, and we excluded immigration judges who had all grants or all 
denials. 

Many and often most of the immigration judges in the same immigration 
court differed significantly in their likelihood of granting asylum to 
applicants from the same nationality when compared to the immigration 
judge who represented the average likelihood of granting asylum in that 
immigration court (the "average immigration judge"). This was the case 
both before and after we statistically controlled for the effects of 
five claimant characteristics (represented, claimed one or more 
dependents on application, filed for asylum within 1 year of entry to 
the United States, time period in which application was filed, ever 
detained). When the effects of these 5 factors were accounted for, it 
was still the case that relative to the grant rate of the "average 
immigration judge" who ruled on similar cases in each immigration 
court, the grant rates of many immigration judges in the same 
immigration court were significantly different (either in the direction 
of having grant rates that were significantly higher or lower than that 
of the average immigration judge). Specifically, 

* the decisions of 77 percent of immigration judges in New York 
differed significantly from that of the average immigration judge for 
affirmative applicants from China, 

*  the decisions of 55 percent of immigration judges in Los Angeles 
differed significantly from that of the average immigration judge for 
affirmative applicants from China. 

* the decisions of 70 percent of immigration judges in Miami differed 
significantly from that of the average immigration judge for 
affirmative applicants from Haiti, 

* the decisions of 79 percent of immigration judges in San Francisco 
differed significantly from that of the average immigration judge for 
affirmative applicants from India, 

* the decisions of 41 percent of immigration judges in New York 
differed significantly from that of the average immigration judge for 
defensive applicants from China, and: 

* the decisions of 39 percent of immigration judges in Miami differed 
significantly from that of the average immigration judge for defensive 
applicants from Haiti. 

We found that certain claimant and immigration judge characteristics 
did not have significant effects on asylum outcomes for the 
nationalities examined within the same immigration court, while others 
did. Specifically, after simultaneously controlling for the effects of 
the other factors, we found that for the six specific immigration 
court/nationality combinations in our analysis, asylum outcomes were 
generally not significantly affected by: 

* whether or not an immigration judge had previous experience doing 
immigration work for a nonprofit organization; 

* whether or not an immigration judge had previous immigration 
experience in government; 

* the immigration judge's gender (except for Haitians in Miami, where 
both affirmative and defensive applicants were 30 percent as likely to 
be granted asylum if the immigration judge was male rather than 
female); 

* The immigration judge's race/ethnicity (except for Chinese in Los 
Angeles and Haitians in Miami, where affirmative applicants were more 
than twice as likely to be granted asylum if the immigration judge was 
white, nonHispanic rather than other race/ethnicity); 

* the immigration judge's veteran status (except for Haitians in Miami, 
where defensive applicants were 40 percent as likely to be granted 
asylum if the immigration judge was a veteran); 

* whether the immigration judge was appointed during a Democratic or 
Republican presidential administration (except for Chinese in New York, 
where affirmative applicants were more than twice as likely to be 
granted asylum, and defensive applicants were almost 3 times as likely 
to be granted asylum by immigration judges who were appointed during a 
Republican presidential administration); or: 

* the age of the immigration judge (except for Haitians in Miami where 
affirmative applicants were nearly twice as likely to be granted asylum 
by older rather than younger immigration judges). 

In contrast, certain characteristics did have significant effects on 
asylum outcomes, and we found the size of these effects in the six 
immigration court/nationality combinations to be similar to those found 
across all immigration judges and all immigration courts. Specifically, 
asylum grants were generally significantly higher when the following 
circumstances were present: 

* Applicants were represented. This was the case in five of the six 
immigration court/nationality combinations we examined. For example, 
representation was associated with a six-fold increase in asylum grants 
for affirmative applicants from India who filed their cases in San 
Francisco and a two-fold increase in asylum grants for affirmative 
applicants from China who filed their cases in Los Angeles, as well as 
defensive applicants from Haiti who filed their case in Miami. Only 
affirmative Chinese applicants in New York failed to gain significantly 
more grants of asylum when represented. 

* Applicants claimed one or more dependents on the asylum application. 
This was the case in five of the six immigration court/nationality 
combinations we examined. For example, claiming dependents was 
associated with nearly a fourfold increase in asylum grants for 
defensive applicants from China who filed their cases in New York City; 
and a twofold increase in asylum grants for affirmative applicants from 
China who filed their cases in New York or Los Angeles, as well as 
affirmative applicants from Haiti who filed their case in Miami. Of the 
six, only defensive Haitian applicants in Miami failed to obtain 
significantly more grants of asylum when claiming one or more 
dependents on the asylum application. 

Results for other characteristics were mixed. For example, immigration 
judges who handled 65 cases or more at the time of the hearing were in 
some instances more likely, and in others less likely to grant asylum 
than those who handled less than 30 cases at the time of the hearing. 
Immigration judges in Miami who handled affirmative and defensive 
Haitian cases, were only 60 percent as likely to grant asylum if their 
caseload size was 65 or more rather than less than 30. 

Table 21: Summary of Analyses of Asylum Seekers in Specific 
Combinations of Immigration Courts and Countries: 

Descriptive information: Number of immigration judges; Affirmative 
cases: China/NYC: 45; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 32; Affirmative 
cases: Haiti/ Miami: 35; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 25; Defensive 
cases: China/ NYC: 47; Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 33. 

Descriptive information: Number of claimants; Affirmative cases: China/ 
NYC: 19,704; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 3,271; Affirmative cases: 
Haiti/ Miami: 11,636; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 4,902; Defensive 
cases: China/ NYC: 18,205; Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 8,172. 

Descriptive information: Overall percent of cases granted; Affirmative 
cases: China/NYC: 56.8%; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 43.8%; 
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 14.8%; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 
49.1%; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 35.4%; Defensive cases: 
Haiti/Miami: 11.6%. 

Descriptive information: Percent of cases granted by referent 
immigration judge; Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 55.4%; Affirmative 
cases: China/LA: 40.9%; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 16.7%; 
Affirmative cases: India/SF: 54.2%; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 35.7%; 
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 12.0%. 

Descriptive information: Percent of immigration judges differing from 
referent (unadjusted); Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 80.0%; Affirmative 
cases: China/LA: 37.5%; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 65.7%; 
Affirmative cases: India/SF: 76.0%; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 44.7%; 
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 45.5%. 

Descriptive information: Percent of immigration judges differing from 
referent (adjusted); Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 84.4%; Affirmative 
cases: China/LA: 34.3%; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 60.0%; 
Affirmative cases: India/SF: 72.0%; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 42.6%; 
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 39.4%. 

Descriptive information: Claimant factors included simultaneously in 
the adjusted models; Affirmative cases: China/NYC
Affirmative cases: China/LA
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami Affirmative cases: India/SF
Defensive cases: China/ NYC
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: [Empty]. 

Descriptive information: Represented; Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 
0.9; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 2.3[A]; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ 
Miami: 1.5[A]; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 5.8[A]; Defensive cases: 
China/ NYC: 0.6[A]; Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 2.1[A]. 

Descriptive information: One or more dependents; Affirmative cases: 
China/NYC: 2.2[A]; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 2.0[A]; Affirmative 
cases: Haiti/ Miami: 1.8[A]; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 1.5[A]; 
Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 3.2[A]; Defensive cases: Haiti/ Miami: 
1.0. 

Descriptive information: Application filed within 1 year of entry; 
Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 1.5[A]; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 
2.5[A]; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 0.9; Affirmative cases: India/ 
SF: 1.4[A]; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 1.1; Defensive cases: 
Haiti/Miami: 1.4[A]. 

Descriptive information: Period of decision: 4/1/97-9/10/01 v. 10/1/ 94-
3/31/97; 9/11/01-4/30/07 v. 10/1/94-3/31/97; Affirmative cases: 
China/NYC: 10.3[A]; 23.3[A]; 
Affirmative cases: China/LA: 0.2[A]; 0.2[A]; 
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 0.8; 1.0; 
Affirmative cases: India/SF: 1.1; 1.1; 
Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 11.0[A]; 14.6[A]; 
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 1.1; 1.5. 

Descriptive information: Claimant ever detained; Affirmative cases: 
China/NYC: n/a; Affirmative cases: China/LA: n/a; Affirmative cases: 
Haiti/ Miami: n/a; Affirmative cases: India/SF: n/a; Defensive cases: 
China/ NYC: 0.6[A]; Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 0.9. 

Descriptive information: Immigration judge factors included 
simultaneously in the adjusted models; Affirmative cases: China/NYC
Affirmative cases: China/LA
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami Affirmative cases: India/SF
Defensive cases: China/ NYC
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: [Empty]. 

Descriptive information: Previous non profit immigration experience; 
Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 1.3; Affirmative cases: China/LA: n/a; 
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: n/a; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 1.8; 
Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 1.2; Defensive cases: Haiti/ Miami: 1.0. 

Descriptive information: Previous government immigration experience; 
Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 0.9; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 1.3; 
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 0.8; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 0.8; 
Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 0.8; Defensive cases: Haiti/ Miami: 0.7. 

Descriptive information: Male; Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 0.6; 
Affirmative cases: China/LA: 1.1; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 
0.3[A]; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 0.8; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 
0.5; Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 0.3[A]. 

Descriptive information: White, nonHispanic; Affirmative cases: China/ 
NYC: 1.0; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 2.5[A]; Affirmative cases: 
Haiti/ Miami: 1.8; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 0.8; Defensive cases: 
China/ NYC: 0.9; Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 1.5. 

Descriptive information: Veteran; Affirmative cases: China/NYC: n/a; 
Affirmative cases: China/LA: 1.3; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 0.4; 
Affirmative cases: India/SF: 1.3; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: n/a; 
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 0.5[A]. 

Descriptive information: Appointed during Republican administration; 
Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 2.3[A]; Affirmative cases: China/LA: 0.8; 
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 0.7; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 0.9; 
Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 2.7[A]; Defensive cases: Haiti/ Miami: 
1.0. 

Descriptive information: Age 50+; Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 0.9; 
Affirmative cases: China/LA: 1.6; Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: 
1.8[A]; Affirmative cases: India/SF: 0.8; Defensive cases: China/ NYC: 
1.0; Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: 1.6. 

Descriptive information: Immigration judge caseload effects: 30-64 
cases v. <30; >=65 cases v. <30; 
Affirmative cases: China/NYC: 1.2; 1.5; 
Affirmative cases: China/LA: 0.8; 0.6; 
Affirmative cases: Haiti/ Miami: ; 0.7[A]; 
0.6[A]; 
Affirmative cases: India/SF: ; 0.9; 
0.9; 
[Empty]; 
Defensive cases: China/ NYC: ; 1.1; 
1.4; 
Defensive cases: Haiti/Miami: ; 0.8; 
0.6[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

Note: "n/a" indicates that the variable was not included in the model 
due to lack of sufficient number of immigration judges with the 
particular attribute: 

[A] Indicates statistically significant difference from referent group 
(Note: standard errors are adjusted for clustering at the immigration 
judge level). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Prior Research on Factors Affecting Asylum Decisions: 

Several recent studies have used EOIR administrative data to examine 
asylum decisions by immigration judges and other adjudicators and have 
concluded that asylum decisions varied significantly across immigration 
judges, and immigration courts, for both affirmative and defensive 
applicants from a variety of countries of origin. Of these, three 
studies attempted to statistically control for differences among cases 
by looking at "similarly situated" applicants. These studies cross- 
tabulated adjudicators' asylum grant rates with one or two other 
factors, such as applicants of the same nationality in the same 
immigration court or applicants of the same nationality who were also 
represented by counsel. Two studies attempted to correlate 
adjudicators' grant rates with other factors, such as the gender of the 
adjudicator or his or her prior employment experience. 

Two studies published in 2006 and 2007 by Syracuse University's 
Transactional Records Analysis Clearinghouse examined decisions by 
immigration judges who decided at least 100 asylum cases during the 
period covering fiscal years 1995 to 2005 and 2001 to 2006, 
respectively. Each study reported that there was substantial variation 
in asylum grant rates across judges in many of the nation's immigration 
courts and for applicants from a wide range of countries of 
origin.[Footnote 72] 

A study published in 2007 by researchers at Temple and Georgetown 
universities found substantial variation in asylum decisions made by 
asylum officers, immigration judges, and federal appeals court 
judges.[Footnote 73] To examine adjudicator decisions in "similarly 
situated" cases, the researchers selected applicants from 15 "Asylee 
Producing Countries" that produced at least 500 cases before the Asylum 
Office or immigration court during fiscal year 2004 and a national 
grant rate of at least 30 percent in either of these venues. The study 
defined "substantial variation" as deviations by individual 
adjudicators in asylum offices, immigration courts, or federal courts 
of more than 50 percent from that venue's average.[Footnote 74] Among 
other things, the study found that more than 25 percent of the 
immigration judges in the three largest immigration courts had asylum 
grant rates that deviated from their own immigration court's average 
asylum grant rate by more than 50 percent. The study also found that 
female immigration judges were more likely to grant asylum than male 
immigration judges, and immigration judges who came from private law 
practices, often representing aliens, were more likely to grant asylum 
than immigration judges who previously worked for the government. These 
findings were similar to those of the San Jose Mercury News, which in 
2000 reported on its analysis of asylum decisions made between 1995 and 
1999. [Footnote 75] 

A 2005 report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 
examined a subset of immigration judge decisions for defensive asylum 
applicants who were apprehended when they attempted to enter the 
country illegally at or between ports of entry. Using a 
nonrepresentative sample of 14 immigration courts, the study analyzed 
variation in asylum grant rates across immigration judges for fiscal 
years 2000 to 2003.[Footnote 76] The study found statistically 
significant variations in the asylum decisions of immigration judges in 
the same immigration court. The study did not examine other factors 
that could contribute to variability in asylum decisions such as the 
nationality of the applicants or characteristics of the immigration 
judges. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Evi Rezmovic, Assistant 
Director, and Tom Jessor, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. 
Douglas Sloane, Lisa Mirel, Grant Mallie, and David Alexander made 
significant contributions to the study's design, methodology, and data 
analysis. Yvette Gutierrez-Thomas, Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, Odi Cuero, 
and Bari Bendell contributed to numerous aspects of the work. Frances 
Cook and Jan Montgomery provided legal support; Lara Kaskie and Debbie 
Sebastian provided assistance with report preparation; Lori Weiss and 
Tracey Cross provided expertise on Asylum Division issues; Travis 
Broussard provided assistance in compiling immigration judge 
biographical data; Orlando Copeland provided technical support for 
graphics presentations; Karen Burke and Tina Cheng developed the report 
graphics; and Anna Maria Ortiz verified the results of our statistical 
analyses. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The laws governing asylum protection were first established in 
statute with the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96- 
212, § 201, 94 Stat. 102, 102-06 (1980) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 
1101(a)(42), 1157-1159)). The Refugee Act provided, for the first time, 
a U.S. refugee policy that stated that persecuted aliens who are 
present in the United States and who meet the definition of a refugee 
can apply for asylum protection in the United States. The legal 
standard for a refugee and asylee are the same, but non-citizens must 
apply for refugee status from outside the United States and for asylum 
status from within the United States. The final regulations for 
implementing the Refugee Act of 1980 were issued in 1990. 

[2] Throughout the report, we use the term proceeding and hearing 
interchangeably. We also use the term asylum applicant, seeker, and 
claimant interchangeably, as the applicant is an individual who seeks 
asylum by filing an asylum claim. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 302, 303. 

[4] See for example, J.Ramji-Nogales, A. I. Schoenholtz, and P. G. 
Schrag, "Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication," 
Stanford Law Review, vol. 60, no. 2 (2007), pp. 295-412; Transactional 
Records Access Clearinghouse, Immigration Judges (Syracuse, NY: 2006) 
and Asylum Disparities Persist, Regardless of Court Location and 
Nationality (Syracuse, NY: 2007). [hyperlink, 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/] (accessed Aug. 14, 2008). 

[5] See for example: S.H. Legomsky, "Deportation and the War on 
Independence," Cornell Law Review, vol. 91, no. 2 (2006); Peter J. 
Levinson, "The Facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence in Immigration 
Appellate Adjudications" (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 
American Political Science Association, Chicago, 2004); Ramji-Nogales, 
Schoenholtz and Schrag, "Refugee Roulette"; and J. R. B. Palmer, S. W. 
Yale-Loehr and E. Cronin, "Why Are So Many People Challenging Board Of 
Immigration Appeals Decisions in Federal Court: An Empirical Analysis 
of the Recent Surge in Federal Appeals," Georgetown Immigration Law 
Journal, vol. 20, no. 8 (2005). 

[6] Pub. L. No.104-208, div. C, § 604(a), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-690 
to 94. 

[7] See for example Elizabeth Brundige, Too Late for Refuge: An 
International Law Analysis of IIRIRA's One-Year Filing Deadline for 
Asylum Applications (American Immigration Law Foundation, Washington, 
D.C., 2002); K. Musalo and M. Rice, "The Implementation of the One-Year 
Bar to Asylum," Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 
31, no. 2 (2008); M. R. Pistone, "Asylum Application Deadlines: Unfair 
and Unnecessary," Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, vol. 10, no. 1 
(1996); and M. R. Pistone and P. G. Schrag, "The New Asylum Rule: 
Improved But Still Unfair," Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, vol. 
16, no. 1 (2001). 

[8] We examined various models of the likelihood of a grant or denial 
by an immigration judge and included different combinations of the 
factors in these models, as appropriate. Our statistical methodology is 
detailed in appendixes II and III. 

[9] When we report that the likelihood of being granted asylum was 
significantly related to other factors, that indicates that the 
relationship is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence 
level. 

[10] Affirmative claims are first submitted to DHS by aliens who 
voluntarily initiate the asylum application process; defensive claims 
are first filed with DOJ by aliens who are in removal proceedings. 

[11] The number of factors incorporated into the series of statistical 
analyses we conducted varied depending on the research question being 
addressed. In total, we examined the effects of 16 asylum applicant and 
immigration judge characteristics in determining which factors affected 
asylum outcomes. 

[12] Certain categories of non-citizens are statutorily ineligible for 
asylum even if they can demonstrate past persecution or a fear of 
persecution. The following individuals are ineligible to apply for 
asylum: (1) those who have been in the United States more than 1 year 
without filing for asylum, unless they can demonstrate changed or 
extraordinary circumstances; (2) those previously denied asylum unless 
they can show changed circumstances; and (3) those who may be removed 
to a third country where they would have access to fair asylum 
procedures. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). The following are ineligible for 
a grant of asylum: (1) persecutors of others and certain criminals; (2) 
those who are described in the terrorist grounds of inadmissibility or 
are reasonably regarded as a danger to the security of the United 
States; and (3) those who were firmly resettled in another country 
prior to arriving in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A). 

[13] No fee is charged to apply for asylum. 

[14] De novo review means that the immigration judge is to evaluate the 
applicant's claim anew, as the determination the asylum officer made in 
referring the case to immigration court is not binding on the 
immigration judge. 

[15] Withholding of removal prohibits removal if the applicant's life 
or freedom would be threatened because of persecution. Generally, 
individuals apply for asylum and withholding of removal at the same 
time, but only the immigration judge can grant withholding of removal. 
The applicant must demonstrate that it is "more likely than not" that 
he or she would be persecuted if returned to the country of origin, a 
higher standard than the "reasonable possibility" standard for asylum. 
Protection under regulations implementing the United Nations Convention 
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment (CAT) is another form of relief for individuals fearing 
torture. As with withholding of removal based on persecution, the 
applicant must establish that it is "more likely than not" that he or 
she would be tortured if returned to the country of origin. 

[16] Voluntary departure allows otherwise removable aliens to depart 
the United States at their own expense. They may be barred from 
reentering the United States for up to 10 years and be subject to civil 
and criminal penalties if they fail to depart or reenter without proper 
authorization. 

[17] Generally, the BIA decides appeals by reviewing the record and 
documents submitted by the parties, as opposed to conducting courtroom 
proceedings. 

[18] If DHS disagrees with BIA's ruling, in rare instances, the case 
may be referred to the Attorney General for review. 

[19] Immigration judges make decisions on forms of relief other than 
asylum, including cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. 
They also make determinations regarding the level of bond set for 
aliens in custody, and consider motions by DHS or the alien to reopen 
or reconsider a case previously heard by an immigration judge. 

[20] According to EOIR, as of May 2008 there were 216 immigration 
judges on board in the 54 immigration courts, 13 judges who had been 
hired and were undergoing training, and 19 judges who were at various 
stages of the background investigation, interview and selection 
processes. 

[21] 5 C.F.R. § 6.3(a) allows the head of an agency to fill excepted 
service positions by appointment of persons without civil service 
eligibility or competitive status. Schedule A positions are "positions 
other than those of a confidential or policy determining character" and 
are considered career positions. The authority to appoint an 
immigration judge is vested in the Attorney General pursuant to 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(b)(4). 

[22] For direct appointments, the applicants are referred to EOIR from 
the deputy attorney general, who exercises the attorney general's 
appointment authority. The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) 
confirms the qualifications, and usually interviews the applicant. 

[23] The applicant must have a law degree and be duly licensed and 
authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a state, 
territory, or the District of Columbia: be a United States Citizen; and 
have a minimum of 7 years relevant post-bar admission legal experience 
at the time the application is submitted, with 1 year experience 
equivalent to the GS-15 level in the federal service. According to 
EOIR, DOJ looks for experience in at least three of the following 
areas: substantial litigation experience, preferably in a high-volume 
context; knowledge of immigration laws and procedure; experience 
handling complex legal issues; experience conducting administrative 
hearings; or knowledge of judicial practices and procedures. 

[24] 8 U.S.C. § 1362. 

[25] Nina Siulc, Zhifen Cheng, Arnold Song and Olga Byrne, Vera 
Institute of Justice, Legal Orientation Program Evaluation and 
Performance Outcome Measurement Report, Phase II, a report prepared at 
the request of the Department of Justice, Executive Office for 
Immigration Review, May 2008. The evaluation combined statistical 
analysis of administrative data with interviews with LOP stakeholders. 

[26] 64 Fed. Reg. 56,135 (Oct. 18, 1999). An AWO decision contains two 
sentences prescribed by regulation, without any additional language or 
explanation about the reasons for the affirmance. The sentences state, 
"the Board affirms, without opinion, the decision below. The decision 
below is, therefore, the final agency determination." 

[27] 67 Fed. Reg. 54,878 (Aug. 26, 2002). The rule became effective on 
September 25, 2002. 

[28] If asylum officers are unable to establish whether or not 
applicants have met the 1 year time limit, they are required to refer 
the cases to the immigration court, where the entirety of the 
application will be reviewed by the immigration judge. 

[29] 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). 

[30] Our analyses included all asylum cases decided between October 1, 
1994, and April 30, 2007, that involved asylum seekers from the 20 
countries that produced the most asylum cases and the 19 courts that 
handled a minimum of 800 affirmative and 800 defensive asylum cases. 
The 20 countries and 19 courts represented more than 198,000 cases, or 
66 percent of all asylum cases decided during this period. Except where 
noted, our analyses included all immigration judges in all 19 
immigration courts. In descriptively analyzing differences across 
immigration courts, we focused on immigration courts that heard 50 or 
more cases from a particular country. In analyzing differences in 
asylum decisions across immigration judges, we excluded those 
immigration judges who heard fewer than 50 affirmative cases in our 
analyses of affirmative asylum decisions and fewer than 50 defensive 
cases in our analyses of defensive asylum decisions and excluded cases 
heard by immigration judges other than in their primary court, in order 
to simplify the presentation and avoid reaching inappropriate 
conclusions that can occur when calculations are based on small numbers 
of cases. 

[31] Several recent studies have also used EOIR data to examine asylum 
decisions by immigration judges and other adjudicators. We summarize 
this prior research in appendix IV. Our work overlaps with these 
earlier studies, although we analyze data that cover a longer period of 
time; are more recent; include both defensive and affirmative cases; 
cover a broader range of asylum producing countries; and provide 
information on in absentia cases as well as those in which applicants 
appeared for their asylum hearing. In contrast to previous studies of 
asylum decisions, we use multivariate statistical models that take 
account of potentially confounding factors and possible correlations 
within and between judges to estimate immigration court and judge 
differences. 

[32] Unless otherwise noted, the analysis results presented in this 
section excluded cases that were denied in absentia, or denied when the 
asylum seeker failed to appear before the immigration judge. In 
appendix II (tables 8 though 11), we provide information on cases that 
were denied in absentia as well as cases that were granted and denied 
when the asylum seeker did appear before the judge. 

[33] In the mid 1990s, the Asylum Division implemented major reforms 
that decoupled employment authorization from asylum requests to 
discourage applicants with fraudulent asylum claims from applying for 
asylum solely to obtain a work authorization, and the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 added a 
requirement that the identity of all asylum applicants be checked 
against records or databases maintained by the Attorney General and 
Secretaries of State and later Homeland Security to determine if an 
applicant is ineligible to apply for or be granted asylum. 

[34] In a later section of this report, we discuss the unavailability 
of EOIR data to assess whether applicants’ failure to apply for asylum 
within 1 year of entry to the United States was a basis for their being 
denied asylum. However, EOIR maintains a limited amount of data on the 
date of aliens’ entry into the US and the date of the initial asylum 
application, and we used those data for this multivariate analysis. Of 
the 190,476 cases on which this analysis was based, data on whether the 
alien applied for asylum within 1 year of entry were missing in 9,051 
of the 124,972 affirmative cases and 15,885 of the 65,504 defensive 
cases. 

[35] We selected these country-immigration court combinations because 
they had a sufficiently large number of immigration judges rendering a 
sufficiently large number of decisions to produce reliable estimates in 
our logistic regression analyses. 

[36] Immigration law provides that aliens in immigration proceedings 
shall have the privilege of being represented at no expense to the 
government by counsel selected by the alien and authorized to practice. 

[37] The San Pedro, Calif., site was discontinued in November, 2007, 
because of ICE's decision to temporarily close the facility. EOIR chose 
not to renew the contract task order for the LOP program at the Laredo, 
Tex. facility, because of a significant reduction in the number of 
detained aliens in EOIR removal proceedings at the facility. The San 
Diego, Calif., ICE detention facility at Otay Mesa was added in fiscal 
year 2007. 

[38] Siulc et al, Legal Orientation Program Evaluation, 63. 

[39] Siulc et al, Legal Orientation Program Evaluation, 61. 

[40] In rank ordering immigration judges based on the results of our 
multivariate analysis, the factors that we simultaneous statistically 
controlled for were applicants' nationality; the time period in which 
their case was decided; and whether applicants had representation, 
claimed dependents, filed within 1 year of entry, and, among defensive 
cases, if applicants were ever detained. 

[41] EOIR had an additional ACIJ who was not supervising any 
immigration judges. 

[42] The 6 ACIJs deployed to immigration courts in the field were 
located in San Diego, Calif; San Francisco, Calif; Los Angeles, Calif; 
Miami, Fla; San Antonio, Tex; and New York, N.Y. 

[43] In addition to supervising immigration judges, the four 
headquarters ACIJs serve as focal points for the following areas: 
training and education; conduct and professionalism; the Institutional 
Hearing Program; and DHS and the Legal Orientation Program. 

[44] Additionally, EOIR began to implement a performance appraisal 
system for members of the BIA in July 2008. 

[45] The Attorney General's recommendations for reforming immigration 
courts, including for improving training for immigration judges, and 
the Board of Immigration Appeals, were issued the previous month, in 
August 2006. 

[46] BIA streamlining was authorized by regulation in October 1999, 
implemented for certain categories of appeals in September 2000, and 
expanded to apply specifically to asylum, withholding and CAT appeals 
in March 2002. 

[47] EOIR does not track in its data system the specific legal issues 
underlying an alien's or DHS's appeal of an immigration judge decision 
to the BIA, nor the BIA's decision on each of the issues raised in the 
appeal. The methods we used to merge the EOIR data sources and to 
categorize the BIA decision outcomes are described in appendix I. 

[48] Voluntary departure allows an otherwise-removable alien to depart 
the United States at his or her own personal expense and return to his 
or her home country or another country if the individual can secure an 
entry there. 

[49] Less than 1 percent of affirmative applicants in our analysis were 
detained at the time their appeals were decided by the BIA, and the 
increase in favorable outcomes for them shown in the table was not 
significant. 

[50] Only 4 percent of defensive applicants in our analysis had 
dependents. 

[51] EOIR officials stated that in fiscal year 2004 EOIR began 
maintaining reliable data regarding whether the appeal was decided by a 
single member or a three-member panel. 

[52] 73 Fed. Reg. 34,654 (June 18, 2008). 

[53] 71 Fed. Reg. 70,855 (Dec. 7, 2006). 

[54] 73 Fed. Reg. 33,875 (June 16, 2008). 

[55] As opposed to the requirement that the applicants demonstrate a 
"reasonable possibility" of persecution to be granted asylum, 
applicants must demonstrate that persecution is "more likely than not" 
to be granted a withholding from removal (see fn. 16). 

[56] KPMG Consulting, Inc., Data Validation for ANSIR and BIAP, a 
report prepared at the request of the Department of Justice, Executive 
Office for Immigration Review, December 2002. 

[57] Siulc et al, Legal Orientation Program Evaluation; Patrick Baier, 
"Selected Statistical Analyses of Immigration Judge Rulings on Asylum 
Applications, FY 2000-2003," in United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, Report on Asylum Seekers in Expedited 
Removal, Volume II: Expert Reports (Washington, D.C.: February 2005), 
420-443; and Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Immigration 
Judges; and Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Asylum 
Disparities Persist, Regardless of Court Location and Nationality. 

[58] Court administrators manage the daily operations and 
administrative staff of the immigration courts. 

[59] Siulc et al, Legal Orientation Program Evaluation. 

[60] Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 
The BIA Pro bono Project Is Successful (Falls Church, Va.: 2004). 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/reports/BIAProBonoProjectEvaluation.pdf] 
(accessed Aug. 4, 2008). 

[61] Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 
Guidelines for Facilitating Pro bono Legal Services (Falls Church, Va.: 
2008). http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/ocij/oppm08/08-01.pdf (accessed 
Aug. 4, 2008). 

[62] We used March 15, 2002 as the date BIA streamlining took effect 
for asylum cases, since it was on that day that the BIA Chair issued a 
memorandum expanded streamlining procedures to asylum, withholding and 
CAT cases. 

[63] The data we obtained did not include records pertaining to appeals 
arising from decisions rendered by DHS, including family-based visa 
petitions adjudicated by DHS officials, fines and penalties imposed on 
carriers for violations of immigration laws, and waivers of 
inadmissibility for nonimmigrants under §212(d)(3) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. In fiscal year 2007, these appeals constituted 13 
percent of the BIA's decisions. 

[64] BIA appeals arising from immigration judge decisions also include 
appeals of immigration judge decisions on motions to reopen proceedings 
at the immigration court level; appeals pertaining to bond, parole, or 
detention; motions to reopen cases already decided at the BIA; 
interlocutory appeals that relate to important jurisdictional questions 
regarding the administration of immigration law and recurring problems 
in the handling of cases by immigration judges; and appeals that result 
from a remand to the BIA from the U.S. courts of appeals. 

[65] 54 Fed. Reg. 56,135 (Oct. 18, 1999) and 67 Fed. Reg. 54,878 (Aug. 
26, 2002). 

[66] Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 
Streamlining (Falls Church, Va.: 2002). [hyperlink, 
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/genifo/stream.htm] (accessed Aug. 4, 
2008). 

[67] Andersen LLP, Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Streamlining 
Pilot Project Assessment Report, a special report prepared at the 
request of the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration 
Review, December 2001; and Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Board of Immigration 
Appeals: Procedural Reforms to Improve Case Management (Washington, 
D.C.: 2003). 

[68] Palmer, Yale-Loehr and Elizabeth Cronin, "An Empirical Analysis of 
the Recent Surge in Federal Appeals." 

[69] GAO, U.S. Asylum System: Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help 
Ensure Quality in the Asylum Adjudication Process, but Challenges 
Remain, GAO-08-935 (Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008). 

[70] Data were missing for 7 percent of affirmative cases and 24 
percent of defensive cases. We present results separately for 
applicants with missing data, and we adjust for missing data in our 
logistic regressions involving this variable. 

[71] Figures 11 and 12 show the point estimates and 95 percent 
confidence interval estimates for the adjusted and unadjusted odds 
ratios indicating the differences between each immigration court and 
the referent immigration court (Denver), for affirmative cases and 
defensive cases. Were there no differences across courts, all odds 
ratios would be 1.0 and reside on the horizontal line shown at that 
point in all figures. In all figures the courts are ordered from those 
having the lowest unadjusted odds on granting asylum to those having 
the highest odds, and it is noteworthy that the adjusted odds involve a 
reordering of the courts (i.e., the unadjusted odds ratio for Miami 
(relative to Denver) is lower than the unadjusted odds ratio for 
Detroit (relative to Denver), while the adjusted odds ratio for Miami 
(relative to Denver) is higher than the adjusted odds ratio for Detroit 
(relative to Denver). 

[72] Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Immigration Judges; 
and Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Asylum Disparities 
Persist, Regardless of Court Location and Nationality, July 31, 2006 
and September 24, 2007, respectively. 

[73] Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag, "Refugee Roulette." The 
researchers were not able to examine disparity across members of the 
BIA, because of limitations in the data collected by EOIR. Other 
obstacles prevented the researchers from examining disparity across 
federal appeals court judges in federal appeals courts other than the 
3rd and 6th circuits. 

[74] For example, if the asylum grant rate for applicants from the 15 
selected countries was 30 percent in a particular immigration court, 
then a "substantial deviation" from that average by an individual 
immigration judge would be an asylum grant rate of less than 15 or more 
than 45 percent. 

[75] Fredric N. Tulsky, "Asylum Seekers Face Capricious Legal System. 
Some Judges Grant Asylum In Only 1 In 20 Cases, Others In 1 In Every 2. 
Former Government Immigration Lawyers Are Toughest. Asylum Judges 
Rulings Vary Widely, Even For Applicants With Similar Stories." San 
Jose Mercury News, October 18, 2000. 

[76] Baier, "Selected Statistical Analyses of Immigration Judge Rulings 
on Asylum Applications." The study examined 20,839 asylum decisions 
made by immigration judges and used a statistical design where 
individual judges' decisions were "nested" within the immigration court 
in which they resided. EOIR selected the courts included in the 
analysis. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: