Rethinking Review Standards in Asylum

By Kim, Andrew Tae-Hyun | William and Mary Law Review, November 2013 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Rethinking Review Standards in Asylum


Kim, Andrew Tae-Hyun, William and Mary Law Review


ABSTRACT

Factual findings drive asylum adjudication. If immigration judges get them wrong, they risk sending refugees back to persecution. Recent studies have exposed an immigration agency that is prone to inaccurate and ill-considered fact-finding due to its structural problems. Without the political will or the financial capital necessary to fix what many acknowledge as a compromised system of adjudication, the agency may continue to render decisions that cast doubt on its capability and expertise. With an agency either unable or unwilling to ensure an accurate and fair fact-finding process, the first meaningful review of an asylum applicant's claim happens at the federal courts of appeals, where judges continue to affirm the agency's decisions under a most deferential understanding of the substantial evidence standard of review. This Article exposes that anomaly and articulates an understanding of the substantial evidence standard that allows reviewing judges more latitude to consider the capabilities and credibility of the agency when they assess agency findings of fact. It argues that, in light of the agency's severe under-resourcing problems, judges should review the agency's factual findings less deferentially and exercise their discretion to remand decisions back to the agency if they lack confidence in the accuracy and fairness of the fact-finding process. The price to pay for not doing so is the risk of sending an individual to persecution.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
I. SCOPE OF ASYLUM REVIEW UNDER THE SUBSTANTIAL
   EVIDENCE STANDARD: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN
   THE SECOND CIRCUIT
   A. Asylum Procedure
   B. Source of the Substantial Evidence Standard
   C. The Varied Application of the Substantial Evidence
      Standard in Asylum Cases
   D. Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft: Stricter Review in
      Immigration?
   E. Cases Citing Qiu: A Review
   F. Siewe v. Gonzales: Challenging the Stricter
      Formulation
   G. Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Department of Justice:
      A Response to Siewe
   H. The Importance of the Debate
II. REASONS FOR STRICTER REVIEW: DEFICIENCIES WITHIN
      IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATION
      A. Lack of Institutional Capacity: Under-Resourcing
         Problems at the Executive Office for Immigration
         Review (EOIR)
      B. Lack of Quality Representation for Noncitizens
      C. Bias and Threat to Agency's Decisional Independence
      D. Procedural Shortcuts at the BIA
III. INAPPLICABLE ASSUMPTIONS UNDER THE SUBSTANTIAL
     EVIDENCE STANDARD
     A. Comparative Advantage
         1. Live Testimony Advantage
         2. Procedures Employed at Article III Courts
            Versus at Agencies
     B. Agency Expertise
     C. Political Accountability
     D. Finality: Akin to Jury Verdicts?
IV. THE WAY FORWARD: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
     A. The Legal Basis for "Stricter" Review
     B. Akin to Hard Look Review
     C. A Continuum of Deference
CONCLUSION

"[E]ach time we wrongly deny a meritorious asylum application, concluding that an immigrant's story is fabricated when, in fact, it is real, we risk condemning an individual to persecution.... [W]e must always remember the toll that is paid if and when we err." Judge Calabresi (1)

INTRODUCTION

Judicial review over agency action has received both extensive judicial analysis and scholarly attention. (2) The scope of that review over agency factual determinations remains, however, comparatively neglected. In asylum (3) adjudication, an agency's factual determinations can wholly drive the outcome of the case. Asylum decisions are not only fact intensive, but the question of whether a noncitizen meets the statutory definition of a refugee--in reality, a mixed question of law and fact--is treated in the asylum context only as a question of fact. (4) This distinction is critical because the scope of appellate review over factual determinations occurs under the more deferential substantial evidence standard, (5) whereas courts can review mixed questions of law and fact less deferentially.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Rethinking Review Standards in Asylum
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?