Details

Subject(s)

• Asylum, Right of—United States [Browse]
• Political refugees—Legal status, laws, etc—United States [Browse]

Related name

• United States. Government Accountability Office [Browse]

Summary note

• Each year, tens of thousands of noncitizens apply in the United States for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution. Asylum officers (AO) in the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and immigration judges (IJ) in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) assess applicants' credibility and eligibility. GAO was asked to evaluate aspects of the asylum system. This report addresses the extent to which quality assurance mechanisms have been designed to ensure adjudications' integrity, how key factors affect AOs' adjudications, and what key factors affect IJs' adjudications. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed agency documents, policies, and procedures; surveyed all AOs, supervisory AOs, and IJs; and visited three of the eight Asylum Offices. These offices varied in size and percentage of cases granted asylum. Results of these visits provided additional information but were not projectable. USCIS and EOIR have designed quality assurance mechanisms to help ensure the integrity of asylum adjudications, but some can be improved. While 75 percent of AO survey respondents reported that basic training prepared them at least moderately well to adjudicate cases, they also reported that despite weekly training, they needed additional training to help them detect fraud, conduct security checks, and assess the credibility of asylum seekers. The Asylum Division does not consistently solicit AOs' and supervisory AOs' input on a range of their training needs. Without this, the Asylum Division lacks key information for making training decisions. The Asylum Division has designed a quality review framework to ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions. Although supervisors review all cases and headquarters reviews certain cases, other local quality assurance reviews rarely took place in three of the eight Asylum Offices primarily due to.
• Of suspected fraud and receive information to aid in fraud detection. Eighty-two percent of IJs reported time limitations as moderately or very challenging aspects of their adjudications. EOIR has detailed IJs to courts with high caseloads and plans to hire additional staff, but it is too soon to know the extent to which additional staff will alleviate IJs' time challenges.

Notes

Record is based on bibliographic data in ProQuest U.S. Congressional Research Digital Collection. Reuse except for individual research requires license from ProQuest, LLC.

Bibliographic references

Includes bibliographical references.

Reproduction note

Electronic reproduction. [Bethesda, Md.] : ProQuest, 2004. digital, PDF file. ProQuest U.S. Congressional Research Digital Collection. Mode of access: World Wide Web via ProQuest website.

System details

System requirements: PDF reader software.

Other format(s)

Also available via the Internet from the GAO website. Address as of 10/20/2008: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08935.pdf.

Other title(s)

• Asylum challenges
• United States asylum system : agencies have taken actions to help ensure quality in the asylum adjudication process, but challenges remain
• Agencies have taken actions to help ensure quality in the asylum adjudication process, but challenges remain
• ProQuest U.S. Congressional Research Digital Collection.

SuDoc no.

GA 1.13:GAO-08-935

Tech. report no.

GAO-08-935

Statement on language in description

Princeton University Library aims to describe library materials in a manner that is respectful to the individuals and communities who create, use, and are represented in the collections we manage. Read more...