In July I reported on 37 judges that are the center of the Justice Department scandal involving immigration judges being appointed based on political loyalty rather than competency. This morning the NY Times reports on an analysis of denial rates in asylum cases for these same judges. And, surprise surprise, the denial rates are much higher than for the untainted judges. I'm not an expert on what is legally possible as far as addressing this ridiculous situation, but I hope that the Justice Department will take the lead soon and show what steps it is taking to restore confidence in the integrity of the Immigration Bench.
Incidentally, you can view for yourself the data used in the analysis by going here.
I took a look at the situation when my (non-asylum immigration) case was litigated, and my impression was that judges political views play a huge role in their decisions. Sadly it also matters where you file because judges base their decisions on the case law in their circuits of appeals. I personally think this is ridiculous as Immigration Law is federal by nature, so why on earth the decisions in Midwest should be different from those in NY, or CA? But they surely are different. How is that legal? Greg, could you enlighten me on the matter?
Posted by: hmm | August 24, 2008 at 05:22 PM