![Page 1: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Refugee Roulette:Disparities in Asylum
Adjudication
Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz
and Philip G. Schrag
![Page 2: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Affirmative Asylum Applications
![Page 3: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Size of DatabasesDatabase Number of Asylum
CasesAsylum Office Decisions,
FY 1999-2005
130,000 (900 asylum officers)
Immigration Court Decisions, Jan. 2000 through August 2004
140,000 (225 judges)
BIA Asylum Decisions, FY 1998-2005
101,000
US Courts of Appeals Decisions, Calendar Years 2004 and 2005
4215
![Page 4: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The 15 Asylee-producing Countries (APCs)
• Albania• Armenia• Cameroon• China• Colombia• Ethiopia• Guinea*• Haiti
• India• Liberia• Mauritania*• Pakistan• Russia• Togo*• Venezuela*
* Not included in Asylum Office Studies
![Page 5: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Our Benchmark for Measuring Disparity
For the data set in question (as defined for each study), did an adjudicator render a decision favorable to the asylum applicant at a rate that was either more than 50% higher or more than 50% lower than the rate of such decisions by adjudicators from the same office?
![Page 6: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Regional Asylum Offices
![Page 7: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Asylum Office Regions A and H Grant Rates in APC Cases (Officers with At
Least 50 APC Cases)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 31
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
![Page 8: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Deviations from Region A Mean for Strong Claim (APC) Countries
(2 of 31 officers deviate from the office mean by more than 50%)
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
![Page 9: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Deviations from Region H Mean for Strong Claim (APC) Countries
(27 of 53 Officers deviate by more than 50%)
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
![Page 10: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Grant Rates and Percentage of Officers (with at Least 50 cases) who Deviate by More
than 50% from Regional APC Rates[N = 132,754 cases]
Region APC Grant Rate
Percentage of Officers who Deviate from Regional APC Grant Rate by More than 50%
D 62% 2%
A 35% 6%
C 56% 9%
B 39% 11%
E 26% 18%
F 52% 22%
G 38% 35%
H 27% 51%
![Page 11: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Asylum Officer Regions, Single Country Charts
Grant Rates and Deviations from Regional One-Country Means, Officers with At Least 25 Cases
![Page 12: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
China
![Page 13: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Region C – Grant Rates (China)Region C, China Grant Rates, Officers with 25+ cases
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
![Page 14: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Region C – Officers’ Deviations from Regional China Mean (3/42 Deviate by
More than 50%)
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
![Page 15: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Region E – Grant RatesRegion E, Grant Rates, China
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57
![Page 16: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Region E (which shows less consistency in Chinese adjudications than Region C). Officers’
Deviations from Regional China Mean (17/57 Deviate by More than 50%)
-120%-110%-100%-90%-80%-70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%180%190%200%210%220%230%240%250%260%270%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
![Page 17: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Some Regions Have Much Less Consistency Among
Asylum Officers
![Page 18: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Region H – Grant Rates - China
Grant Rates, China, Region H, Officers with 25+ Cases
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
![Page 19: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Region H – Officers’ Deviations from Regional China Mean
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
![Page 20: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Grant Rates in China Cases, By Asylum Office Region
[N = 38,748 cases]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A B C D E F G H
![Page 21: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Percentage of Officers Deviating from Regional China Mean Grant Rates, By Region, Officers with At Least 50
China Cases (Regions B and D Did Not Have Enough Such Officers to Chart) [N = 37,909 cases]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
A
C
E
F
G
H
![Page 22: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
China Grant Rates: All 146 officers who had at least 100 adjudications
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146
![Page 23: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
And It’s Not Just China…
![Page 24: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Region C – India – Grant Rates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
![Page 25: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Region C – India – 15 of 39 Officers Deviate by More than 50%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
![Page 26: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The Immigration Courts
![Page 27: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Grant Rates for APC Cases, 2000-2004, in Immigration Courts with More than 1500 Asylum Cases
37%
12%
41%40% 38%
37%
19%
37%
41% 40%
23%
52%
42%
49%
39%
30%
54%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Arlin
gto
n (
1349)
Atlanta
(687)
Baltim
ore
(2304)
Bosto
n (
1440)
Chic
ago (
1663)
Dalla
s (
560)
Detr
oit (
1462)
Housto
n (
796)
Los A
ngele
s (
6819)
Mem
phis
(1049)
Mia
mi (1
9,4
02)
New
York
(27,9
42)
New
ark
(2392)
Orlando (
2974)
Phila
delp
hia
(1512)
San D
iego (
449)
San F
rancis
co (
5659)
TO
TA
L (
78,4
59)
![Page 28: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Grant Rates of New York Immigration Judges, APC Cases,
Judges with at Least 100 APC Cases
6%7%
11%
17%19%
23%
27%27%28%29%
37%
45%45%47%
50%52%
55%
60%62%63%
66%
69%69%69%71%
74%76%
77%80%
89%91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
![Page 29: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
New York Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the New York Mean, APC Cases, Judges with
100 or More APC Cases
(9 of 31 judges deviate by more than 50%)
-100%
-90%-80%
-70%-60%
-50%-40%
-30%
-20%-10%
0%10%
20%
30%40%
50%60%
70%80%
90%
![Page 30: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Albanian Cases: New York Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Albanian
Cases 2000-2004 (2173 cases)
5%
25%
31%
47% 48%
53%
58%62% 64%
67%71% 71% 71% 73%
82% 83%
91% 92% 92% 93%96%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
![Page 31: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
New York Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the New York Mean for Albanian Cases
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
![Page 32: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Indian Cases: San Francisco Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Indian
Cases 2000-2004 (3114 cases)
3%
8%
18%21%
35%
42%
48%50%
52% 53% 55% 56% 56%
63%66%
71%73%
84%
52%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 (58)
2 (110)
3 (84)
4 (153)
5 (188)
6 (143)
7 (151)
8 (50)
9 (221)
10 (146)
11 (276)
12 (225)
13 (252)
14 (189)
15 (185)
16 (217)
17 (263)
18 (203)
CourtMean(3198)
![Page 33: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
San Francisco Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the San Francisco Mean
for Indian Cases (3114 Cases)
-93%
-84%
-66%-60%
-34%
-19%
-8%-4%
1% 3% 5% 7% 7%
21%27%
37%40%
61%
-110%
-100%
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
![Page 34: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Chinese Cases: Los Angeles Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Chinese
Cases 2000-2004 (2579 cases)
9%12% 13%
16% 16%19%
26%30% 30% 31% 32%
34% 34%
41% 42%
50% 51%
60% 60% 62% 62%
81%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 (1
17)
2 (
68)
3 (1
37)
4 (
81)
5 (
62)
6 (1
56)
7 (1
89)
8 (1
24)
9 (
76)
10 (9
6)
11 (2
71)
12 (1
59)
13 (7
6)
14 (1
58)
15 (1
03)
16 (7
8)
17 (9
9)
18 (9
9)
19 (5
8)
20 (1
36)
21 (1
18)
22 (1
18)
Court M
ean (2
745)
![Page 35: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Los Angeles Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the Los Angeles Mean for Chinese Cases
-90%
-80%-70%
-60%-50%
-40%-30%
-20%
-10%0%
10%20%
30%40%
50%60%
70%
80%90%
100%110%
120%130%
140%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
![Page 36: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Colombian Cases: Miami Immigration Court Grant Rates, Judges with at least 50 Colombian
Cases 2000-2004 (8214 cases)
5% 6% 7%11% 13% 13%
15% 16%18% 19% 21% 21%
25% 25%
34% 35%39%
46%49%
58%
77%
88%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 (4
26)
2 (1
62)
3 (3
82)
4 (3
86)
5 (2
55)
6 (4
37)
7 (2
73)
8 (5
19)
9 (3
21)
10 (3
93)
11 (3
99)
12 (3
70)
13 (3
26)
14 (3
62)
15 (4
43)
16 (3
50)
17 (5
00)
18 (5
41)
19 (2
06)
20 (2
79)
21 (5
50)
22 (3
34)
Cour
t Mea
n(8
265)
![Page 37: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Miami Immigration Court Judges’ Deviations from the Miami Mean for Colombian Cases
-84% -82% -77%
-65%-58% -57%
-49% -47%-39% -37%
-30% -29%-19% -18%
13% 15%
30%
54%63%
93%
155%
193%
-100%-90%-80%-70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%110%120%130%140%150%160%170%180%190%200%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
![Page 38: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Effect of Representation on Grant Rate
16.30%
45.60%
89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Unrepresented Represented Represented byGeorgetown
University's Clinic
![Page 39: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Effect of Dependents on Grant Rates
42.3%
48.2%
38%
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
No Dependents One Dependent
![Page 40: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Effect of Judge's Gender on Grant Rates
53.8%
37.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
78 Female Judges 169 Male Judges
![Page 41: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Effect of Prior Work Experience on Grant Rates
39.6% 38.9% 37.4%
55.4%52.3%
46.3%47.1% 48.2%44.2%
41.1%43.2%
39.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Experience No Experience
![Page 42: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Effect of Prior INS/DHS Experience on Grant Rates
47.9%43.7%
40.7%
30.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No experience 1 to 5 Years 6 to 10 years 11 or more years
![Page 43: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Grant Rates by Gender and Prior Work Experience
33.940.5
35.339.6
43.236.5
49.8
56.8
46.1
59.464
49.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
GovernmentExperience
NoGovernmentExperience
DHS/INSExperience
No DHS/INSExperience
NGOExperience
No NGOExperience
Male Judge Female Judge
![Page 44: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Grant Rate by Gender, Representation, and DHS/INS Experience
41.837.7
14.3 14.3
60.6
48.5
31.4
13.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Representation andNo DHS/INSExperience
Representation andINS/DHS Experience
No Representationand No DHS/INS
Experience
No Representationand DHS/INSExperience
Male judge Female judge
![Page 45: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
The Board of Immigration Appeals
![Page 46: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
All Immigration Cases Appealed from Board of Immigration Appeals to Federal
Courts of Appeals
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2002 2003
Percent of cases with panel opinions Percent of cases remanded by Board
1000
. . . . .Cases/month appealed to circuits
Appeals to US courts
800
600
400
200
![Page 47: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Percentage of BIA Asylum Decisions Favorable to Applicants, By Type of Decision, FY 98-00 and FY 03-05
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
FY 98 FY99 FY00 FY 03 FY 04 FY05
Single member with short opinion
Affirmance without opinion
Single member (AWO + shortopinions)All asylum decisions
![Page 48: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
BIA Asylum Grants and Remands as a Percentage of all Cases (Excludes Cases Coded by BIA as Not
Favoring Either Applicant or Government)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
![Page 49: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
BIA Grants and Remands, Showing Representation (N = 9365 Appeals)
0%
5%10%
15%20%
25%30%
35%40%
45%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Unrepresented All cases Represented
![Page 50: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
The Drop in the Rate of BIA Decisions Favorable to Asylum Applicants from APCs
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2005
All APC cases (15 countries) APC represented cases
![Page 51: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
The Drop in Rate of Decisions Favorable to Asylum Applicants from Individual APCs, FY 2001 vs. 2002
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
FY 2001
FY 2002
![Page 52: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
The U.S. Courts of Appeals
![Page 53: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 3d Cir Judges with at least 25 Cases,
2004-05 (N=784 votes cast)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
![Page 54: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Individual Judges’ Deviations from 12% Circuit Mean Rate of Votes to Remand,
3d Cir., 2004-05 (Judges with 25 or More Votes)(Only 1 of 16 Judges Deviates from Circuit Mean by More than 50%)
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
![Page 55: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
3d Circuit Remand Vote Rates by Party of
Appointing President, 25+ cases
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rep. appointees (12%)
Dem. appointees (12%)
![Page 56: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Rate of Votes to Remand in Asylum Cases, 6th Cir Judges with at least 23 Cases,
2004-05 (N=385 votes cast)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
![Page 57: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Individual Judges’ Deviations from 11.4% Circuit Mean Rate of Votes to Remand,
6th Cir., 2004-05 (Judges with 23 or More Votes)(7 of 13 Judges Deviate from Circuit Mean by More than 50%)
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
![Page 58: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
6th Circuit Remand Vote Rates
by Party of Appointing President, 23+ cases
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Democratic appointees 14.6%
Republican appointees 9.3%Rep. Presiden
![Page 59: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Remand Rates by Circuits, all 4215 asylum appeals, 2004-05
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2004 10.30% 10% 7.10% 1.40% 4.30% 8.70% 33.90% 14.10% 18.30% 8.80% 4.40% 14.40%
2005 14.50% 17.60% 14.30% 2.40% 3.80% 16.50% 37.70% 7% 20.90% 9.40% 2.60% 16.40%
2004-05 12.80% 17.10% 10.90% 1.90% 4.10% 12.70% 36.10% 11.30% 19.50% 9.10% 3.80% 15.40%
1st 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th ALL
![Page 60: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Federal Courts of Appeals Votes to Reverse and/or Remand
(Asylum Cases in Red, Civil Cases in Blue) (Prisoner Cases Excluded)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
4th
11
th
5th
8th
10
th
1st
3d
6th 2d
9th
7th
4th
11
th
5th
8th
10
th
1st
3d
6th 2d
9th
7th
Federal Appeals Circuit
![Page 61: Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication Profs. Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip G. Schrag](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cdb5503460f949a53af/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Remand Rates by Circuits, the 2361 asylum appeals from “asylee-producing
countries,” 2004-05
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1st(39)
2d(363)
3d(185)
4th(161)
5th(73)
6th(131)
7th(77)
8th(54)
9th(1100)
10th(22)
11th(156)
ALL(2361)