MALDEF

Asylum Denials Higher Among Politically Vetted Judges

The New York Times reports that judges selected during three years of an illegal patronage-style process have rejected requests for asylum at a higher rate than other judges in the Justice Department's immigration court system:
The analysis suggests that the effects of a patronage-style selection process for immigration judges — used for three years before it was abandoned as illegal — are still being felt by scores of immigrants whose fates are determined by the judges installed in that period.

The data focuses on 16 judges who were vetted for political affiliation before being hired and have since ruled on at least 100 cases each.

Comparison of their records to others in the same cities shows that as a group they ruled against asylum-seekers significantly more often than colleagues who were appointed, as the law requires, under politically neutral rules.

Click here for the full article.

Copyright 2009 MALDEF — Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund