Asylum Grant Rates

For fiscal years 1995 through 2014, EOIR data indicate that affirmative  and defensive asylum grant rates varied over time and across  immigration courts, applicants’ country of nationality, and individual  immigration judges within courts. Using this definition, annual grant rates for  affirmative asylum applications ranged from 21 to 44 percent from fiscal  year 2008 through fiscal year 2014. In the same time period, grant rates  for defensive asylum applications ranged from 15 to 26 percent. For  example, the grant rate for affirmative applicants in the New York  immigration court was 66 percent, while the grant rate in the Omaha and  Atlanta immigration courts was less than 5 percent (see fig. 8). In addition, researchers have offered potential  explanations for variation in asylum application outcomes. EOIR Data Show Variation in Outcomes of Asylum Applications Across Courts and Judges Persists when Holding Certain Case and Judge Characteristics Constant

On the basis of our analysis of EOIR data from fiscal years 1995 through  2014, we found that asylum grant rates varied across courts and judges,  holding constant various case and judge characteristics. EOIR’s case  management system was designed to manage and track workloads  across immigration courts rather than to collect all data on the details of  individual proceedings. As a result, our analysis could not hold constant the  underlying facts and merits of individual asylum applications because  EOIR’s case management system does not collect that information. For  example:
Representation. Applicants who were represented by legal counsel  were granted asylum at a rate 3.1 times higher than applicants who  were not represented. Many of the factors we analyzed had similar associations for both  affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates. For example:
Representation. Dependents. Asylum Grant Rates Varied Significantly Across Immigration Courts for a Representative Applicant After Controlling for Certain Factors

From May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, we estimated that the  affirmative asylum grant rate would vary by 29 percentage points if  different immigration courts heard the case of a representative applicant  with the same average characteristics we measured. Asylum Grant Rates Varied Significantly Across Immigration Judges for a Representative Applicant After Controlling for Certain Factors

From May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, we estimated that the  affirmative asylum grant rate would vary by 47 percentage points if  different immigration judges heard the case of a representative applicant  with the same average characteristics we measured. EOIR Could Improve Efforts to Measure LOP and LOPC Effectiveness

EOIR monitors LOP and LOPC through a variety of mechanisms, but has  not established a system of performance measures, including  establishing a baseline, to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of LOP  and LOPC to determine whether these programs are having a  measurable impact in meeting program objectives. Developing and  implementing performance measures, including establishing a baseline,  to independently  and periodically determine whether LOP and LOPC are  having a measurable impact would better position EOIR to make any  adjustments necessary to improve the programs’ performance. However, in an e-mail received on October 24, 2016, an Associate  General Counsel for EOIR stated that EOIR concurred with our  recommendation. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) describe the extent of variation in the outcomes  of completed asylum applications over time and across immigration  courts and judges; (2) discuss the factors associated with variability in the  outcomes of completed asylum applications; and (3) examine the extent  to which the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has taken  action to facilitate access to legal resources, including representation, for  asylum applicants. We interviewed EOIR headquarters officials  responsible for overseeing immigration court proceedings; EOIR’s case  management system; immigration judge training and guidance and legal  access programs. Extent of Variation in Completed Asylum Applications

To describe the extent of variation in the outcomes of completed asylum  applications, we analyzed data from EOIR about completions of asylum  applications from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2014, the most  current data available at the time of our analysis. Nonetheless, the data available  allowed us to control for certain factors of each asylum application,  enabling us to compare outcomes across immigration courts and judges. EOIR Actions to Facilitate Access to Legal Resources

To examine the extent to which EOIR has taken action to facilitate access  to legal resources, we reviewed the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and  the Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien  Children (LOPC) program documents and data, including the 2011  blanket purchase agreement and statements of work covering fiscal years  2013 through 2016; quarterly reports, annual reports; site visit reports,  and evaluation reports; and, data reported by the Vera Institute of Justice  (Vera) on the number of unique individuals served by LOP (fiscal years  2008 through 2015) and LOPC (fiscal years 2011 through 2015).
Why GAO Did This Study

Tens of thousands of foreign nationals in the United States apply annually for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution on protected grounds. EOIR's immigration judges decide asylum application outcomes in court proceedings. In 2008, GAO reported that EOIR data from October 1994 through April 2007 showed significant variation in the outcomes across immigration courts and judges (grants versus denials) of such applications.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report for DHS Appropriations Act, 2015, included a provision for GAO to update its 2008 report. This report examines (1) variation in asylum applications outcomes over time and across courts and judges; (2) factors associated with variability; and (3) EOIR's actions to facilitate asylum applicants' access to legal resources. GAO analyzed EOIR data—using multivariate statistics—on asylum outcomes from fiscal years 1995 through 2014, the most current data available at the time of GAO's analysis; reviewed EOIR policies and procedures; and interviewed EOIR officials and immigration judges about court proceedings and legal access programs. GAO observed asylum hearings in 10 immigration courts selected on the basis of application data and other factors.

What GAO Found

GAO analyzed the outcomes of 595,795 asylum applications completed by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) between fiscal years 1995 and 2014, and identified outcome variation both over time and across immigration courts and judges. From fiscal years 2008 through 2014, annual grant rates for affirmative asylum applications (those filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the initiative of the individual and referred to an EOIR immigration judge) ranged from 21 to 44 percent. In the same period, grant rates for defensive asylum applications (those initiated before an immigration judge) ranged from 15 to 26 percent. Further, EOIR data indicate that asylum grant rates varied by immigration court. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, the grant rate was 66 percent (affirmative) and 52 percent (defensive) in the New York, New York, immigration court and less than 5 percent (affirmative and defensive) in the Omaha, Nebraska, and Atlanta, Georgia, immigration courts.
GAO found that certain case and judge-related factors are associated with variation in the outcomes of asylum applications. For example, applicants who were represented by legal counsel were granted asylum at a rate 3.1 (affirmative) and 1.8 (defensive) times higher than applicants who were not represented. After statistically controlling for certain factors, such as judge experience and whether or not the applicant had dependents, GAO found variation remained in the outcomes of completed asylum applications across immigration courts and judges. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 29 and 38 percentage points, respectively, for a representative applicant with the same average characteristics we measured, whose case was heard in different immigration courts. In addition, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 47 and 57 percentage points, respectively, for the same representative applicant whose case was heard by different immigration judges. GAO could not control for the underlying facts and merits of individual asylum applications because EOIR's case management system was designed to track and manage workloads and does not collect data on all of the details of individual proceedings. Nonetheless, the data available allowed GAO to hold constant certain factors of each asylum application, enabling GAO to compare outcomes across immigration courts and judges.
EOIR provides legal resources to targeted populations, including asylum applicants, through the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children (LOPC). EOIR and its contractor use LOP and LOPC site visits, monthly conference calls, and quarterly reports to monitor these programs. However, EOIR has not established performance measures, consistent with principles outlined in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, to determine whether these programs are having a measurable impact in meeting program objectives. Developing and implementing performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to determine whether LOP and LOPC are having a measurable impact would better position EOIR to make any adjustments necessary to improve the programs' performance.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EOIR develop and implement a system of performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of LOP and LOPC. EOIR concurred with GAO's recommendation.