Refugee roulette
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
 | This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. |
Template:New unreviewed article
Refugee roulette “Refugee roulette” refers to arbitrariness in the process of refugee status determinations or, as it is called in the United States, asylum adjudication. At least in the United States and Canada, the outcome of asylum determinations depends in large part on the identity of the particular adjudicator to whom an application is randomly assigned. The term was coined by three law professors, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, in a 2007 article in the Stanford Law Review[1] that was later expanded into a book of the same title.[2] The research revealed the arbitrary nature of decisionmaking in the US asylum process. The research presents the authors’ empirical analysis of decision-making at all four levels of the asylum process, namely the asylum office of the Department of Homeland Security, [| the immigration courts] of the Department of Justice, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the United States Courts of Appeals, revealing tremendous disparities in grant rates even between adjudicators who hear large numbers of cases from the same country in the same location over the same period of time. The study concludes with recommendations for reforming the immigration adjudication system.
The findings of the study were so shocking that they were reported as the lead story on the front page of the New York Times on May 31, 2007.[3] The study was also reported in the Atlantic Monthly[4] and many other media outlets, including the Atlanta Journal and Constitution,[5] the Christian Science Monitor,[6] the Dallas Morning News,[7] and the Miami Herald.[8] The study has been cited by numerous prominent legal academics, including Prof. David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center,[9] Prof. Judith Resnik of the Yale Law School,[10] and Prof. Cass Sunstein of the Harvard Law School.[11] It was also discussed in a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[12] The study has been cited by the United States Government Accountability Office,[13] which confirmed many of its findings in a separate study, as well as the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration[14] and the Appleseed Foundation,[15] among other organizations.[16] A similar study of the Canadian asylum adjudication system was subsequently published.[17]
The term “refugee roulette” continues to be used by the popular media to describe arbitrariness in asylum adjudication.[18]
References
- ^ Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication, 60 Stan.L. Rev. 295 (2007)
- ^ Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform (NYU Press 2009)
- ^ Julia Preston, Big Disparities in Judging of Asylum Cases, N.Y. Times (May 31, 2007); see also Charlie Savage, Vetted judges more likely to reject asylum bids, N.Y. Times (Aug. 23, 2009)
- ^ Random Justice, Atlantic Monthly (Oct. 2007)
- ^ Anna Varela, Asylum a tough sell in Atlanta, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 29, 2007)
- ^ Bill Frogameni, For asylum seekers, a fickle system, Christian Science Monitor (July 3, 2007)
- ^ Todd Robberson, Asylum seekers are at mercy of inconsistent courts, study says, Dallas Morning News (June 1, 2007)
- ^ Lesley Clark, Miami judges less likely to grant asylum, Miami Herald (May 31, 2007)
- ^ David Cole, Out of the Shadows: Preventive Detention, Suspected Terrorists, and War, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 693 (2009)
- ^ Judith Resnik, Detention, the War on Terror, and the Federal Courts, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 579 (2010)
- ^ Thomas J. Miles & Cass R. Sunstein, The Real World of Arbitrariness Review, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 831 (2008)
- ^ Zuh v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 504, 513 (4th Cir. 2008)
- ^ , U.S. Asylum System: Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges (2008)
- ^ American Bar Association Commission on Immigration, Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases (2010)
- ^ Appleseed, Assembly Line Injustice: Blueprint to Reform America's Immigration Courts (2009)
- ^ Human Rights First, Locked Up Far Away: The Transfer of Immigrants to Remote Detention Centers in the United States (2009)
- ^ Sean Rehaag, Troubling Patterns in Canadian Refugee Adjudication, 39 Ottawa L. Rev. 335 (2008)
- ^ Lauren Gelfond Feldinger, Helping Israel avoid ‘refugee roulette’, Jerusalem Post (Nov. 24, 2009); David McKie, Fluctuations in refugee rulings trouble critics, Canadian Broadcasting Centre News (Dec. 17, 2009); Andrea Saenz, U.S. funds immigration cops, but not courts, Harvard Law Record (March 11, 2010)