The Asylum Division and EOIR Have Designed Quality Assurance Mechanisms to Help Ensure the Integrity of Asylum Adjudications, but Some Can Be Improved

To help ensure quality in adjudications, the Asylum Division has designed  training programs and quality reviews and EOIR has designed training  programs, but some can be improved. Although supervisors review all asylum  officer decisions and headquarters personnel review certain cases, other  quality reviews had not occurred in three of the eight Asylum Offices. Fraud-detection training. Eighty-eight percent  of asylum officer respondents reported that they moderately or greatly  understood the type of information contained in the various databases or  systems they check as well as the results they receive. Local quality-assurance review. Majority of Immigration Judges Reported Needing Additional Training; EOIR Expanded Training for New Immigration Judges and Solicited Input on Training Needs

Although the majority of immigration judges reported that EOIR’s training  for newly hired immigration judges and annual training enhanced their  ability to adjudicate asylum cases, the majority reported needing  additional training in several areas, including identifying fraud. Challenges in Assessing the Authenticity of Claims and Time Constraints Are Key Factors Affecting Asylum Officers’ Adjudications

Asylum officers reported difficulties in assessing the authenticity of  asylum claims, despite mechanisms USCIS designed to help asylum  officers assess claims, and also reported time constraints in adjudicating  cases. Furthermore, it is difficult to  know the extent to which any of these measures have deterred fraud. The Asylum Division has worked with other federal entities to provide  asylum officers with access to databases to conduct identity and security  checks and expanded and implemented new identity and security check  requirements on existing checks. U.S. Asylum Officers Report Time Constraints Affect Adjudications; Adjudication Requirements Have Increased While the Productivity Standard Is Unchanged

			Asylum Officers and Supervisors Report Asylum Officers Have Insufficient Time to Thoroughly Adjudicate Cases, but Management Views Are Mixed

The majority of asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers who  responded to our survey reported that the 4 hours, on average, they have  to complete an asylum case is insufficient to be thorough—that is, to  complete the case in a manner consistent with their procedures manual  and training—although views among managers varied. Of the 111 asylum officer survey respondents  who explained what prevented them from referring suspected fraud cases  to their FDNS-IO, about half attributed this to time limitations. The Asylum Division had not  conducted a time study or gathered empirical data. As shown in figure 9, of the 11 aspects of adjudicating asylum  cases we inquired about in our survey, immigration judge survey  respondents most frequently cited verifying fraud (88 percent) as a  moderately or very challenging aspect of adjudicating asylum cases. The  vast majority also reported time limitations (82 percent) and assessing  credibility (81 percent) as moderately or very challenging. Immigration Judges Reported Challenges in Identifying Fraud and Assessing Credibility

Most immigration judges who responded to our survey identified fraud  and assessing credibility as significant challenges in adjudicating asylum  cases. Eighty-one percent of immigration judges reported that assessing  credibility was a moderately or very challenging aspect of adjudicating  asylum cases and an area in which they needed additional training. Until all authorized  immigration court staff are on board, it is too soon to determine the extent  to which increased staffing will affect immigration judges’ ability to  manage their caseload. Furthermore, by more fully  implementing its quality review framework, the Asylum Division would be  in a better position to identify deficiencies in the quality of asylum  decisions asylum officers make, identify the root causes of such  deficiencies, and take appropriate action, such as focusing training  opportunities. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, we  recommend that the Chief of the Asylum Division take the following five  actions:    explore ways to provide additional opportunities for asylum officers to    develop a framework for soliciting information in a structured and  consistent manner on asylum officers’ and supervisors’ respective training  needs, including, at a minimum, training needs discussed in this report;    ensure that the information collected on training needs is used to provide  training to asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers at the offices  where the information shows it is needed or nationally, when training  needs are common;    develop a plan to more fully implement the quality review framework— and complement existing supervisory and headquarters reviews—to  include, among other things, how to ensure that in each Asylum Office a  sample of decisions of asylum officers are reviewed for quality and  consistency and interviews conducted by asylum officers are observed;  and    develop a cost-effective way to collect empirical data on the time it takes  asylum officers to thoroughly complete the steps in the adjudication  process and revise productivity standards, if warranted. Asylum Adjudication Process within DOJ

Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Executive Office for  Immigration Review’s (EOIR) asylum process generally consists of the  following steps.
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, tens of thousands of noncitizens apply in the United States for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution. Asylum officers (AO) in the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and immigration judges (IJ) in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) assess applicants' credibility and eligibility. GAO was asked to evaluate aspects of the asylum system. This report addresses the extent to which quality assurance mechanisms have been designed to ensure adjudications' integrity, how key factors affect AOs' adjudications, and what key factors affect IJs' adjudications. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed agency documents, policies, and procedures; surveyed all AOs, supervisory AOs, and IJs; and visited three of the eight Asylum Offices. These offices varied in size and percentage of cases granted asylum. Results of these visits provided additional information but were not projectable.

What GAO Found

USCIS and EOIR have designed quality assurance mechanisms to help ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, but some can be improved. While 75 percent of AO survey respondents reported that basic training prepared them at least moderately well to adjudicate cases, they also reported that despite weekly training, they needed additional training to help them detect fraud, conduct security checks, and assess the credibility of asylum seekers. The Asylum Division does not consistently solicit AOs' and supervisory AOs' input on a range of their training needs. Without this, the Asylum Division lacks key information for making training decisions. The Asylum Division has designed a quality review framework to ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions. Although supervisors review all cases and headquarters reviews certain cases, other local quality assurance reviews rarely took place in three of the eight Asylum Offices primarily due to competing priorities. By fully implementing its quality review framework, the Asylum Division would better identify deficiencies, examine their root causes, and take action. The majority of IJ survey respondents reported that training enhanced their ability to adjudicate asylum cases, although the majority also reported having additional training needs. EOIR expanded its training program in 2006, particularly for newly hired IJs, and annually solicits IJs' views on their training needs. Asylum officers reported challenges in identifying fraud and assessing applicants' credibility, as well as time constraints, as key factors affecting their adjudications. The majority of AO survey respondents reported it moderately or very difficult to identify various types of fraud, despite mechanisms designed to help identify fraud and assess credibility. Further, assistance from other federal entities to AOs in assessing the authenticity of asylum claims has been hindered in part by resource limitations and competing priorities. With respect to time constraints, 65 percent of AOs and 73 percent of supervisory AOs reported that AOs have insufficient time to thoroughly adjudicate cases--that is, in a manner consistent with procedures and training--while management's views were mixed. The Asylum Division set a productivity standard equating to 4 hours per case in 1999 without empirical data. Without empirical data on the time it takes to thoroughly adjudicate a case, the Asylum Division is not best positioned to know if its productivity standard reflects the time AOs need for thorough adjudications. Verifying fraud, assessing credibility, and time constraints are also key factors affecting IJs' adjudications. IJ survey respondents cited verifying fraud (88 percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as a moderately or very challenging aspect of asylum adjudications. Responding to 2006 Attorney General reforms, EOIR implemented a program to which IJs can refer instances of suspected fraud and receive information to aid in fraud detection. Eighty-two percent of IJs reported time limitations as moderately or very challenging aspects of their adjudications. EOIR has detailed IJs to courts with high caseloads and plans to hire additional staff, but it is too soon to know the extent to which additional staff will alleviate IJs' time challenges.