Politically-Appointed Judges More Likely to Reject Asylum Bids
I wrote before about the scandal of choosing Immigration Judges based upon their political beliefs and loyalty. It had the potential for enormous unfairness in judicial opinions. Now my concerns seem to have been confirmed by a study reported on in the New York Times.The article states "Immigrants seeking asylum in the United States have been disproportionately rejected by judges whom the Bush administration chose using a conservative political litmus test, according to an analysis of Justice Department data." This truly is shameful. Here are additional excerpts from the article:
The analysis suggests that the effects of a patronage-style selection process for immigration judges — used for three years before it was abandoned as illegal — are still being felt by scores of immigrants whose fates are determined by the judges installed in that period.
The data focuses on 16 judges who were vetted for political affiliation before being hired and have since ruled on at least 100 cases each.
Comparison of their records to others in the same cities shows that as a group they ruled against asylum-seekers significantly more often than colleagues who were appointed, as the law requires, under politically neutral rules.
Critics of the politicization of the immigration bench say it is not enough that in 2007 the department stopped using illegal hiring procedures. The fact that many of the politically selected judges remain in power, they say, continues to undermine the perceived fairness of hearings for immigrants fighting deportation.
The Justice Department employs more than 200 immigration judges in more than 50 courts around the country. They conduct hearings for noncitizens asking not to be deported, including asylum-seekers who say they fear religious or political persecution.
Although called “judges,” the hearing examiners are not confirmed by the Senate for life; they are covered by federal civil-service laws, which stipulate that they must be hired on the basis of merit under politically neutral criteria. But in early 2004, political appointees took control of hiring the judges away from career professionals and essentially began treating the positions — which carry salaries of $104,300 to $158,500 — as patronage jobs. They screened out liberals and Democrats, while steering openings to White House-vetted “Bush loyalists” and other job-seekers vouched for by Republican political appointees.
