CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE RESPONDS TO ANALYSIS OF ASYLUM CASES

Last month the San Jose Mercury News carried a series of articles in which it detailed the results of a study of asylum cases, concluding that there is great disparity in the conclusions reached in similar cases, depending on the Immigration Judge before whom the applicant appears.  This week, Chief Immigration Judge Michael J. Creppy responded in an opinion article carried by the Mercury News.

Creppy was extremely critical of the report, saying it provided “a distorted view of the asylum process . . . by using only the most extreme examples of decisions.”  Creppy was also critical of the way the report focused on Immigration Judges and the differences among them, as opposed to the differences between asylum applicants. 

While the report focused on a five-year period, it did not mention that the rate at which asylum was granted increased over those years, from 19.1% in 1995 to 36.1% in 1999.  However, while Creppy points this out, he does not mention that significant changes in asylum law have made it more difficult to even make an application for asylum and the that the increased rate of approval may be because a number of potentially good asylum applicants are not interested in applying. Finally, Creppy lauded the diversity of immigration judges, and pointed to the community and pro bono projects with which many are involved.

< Back | Next >

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.