-
‘Common Sense Discipline’ is Not Evidence-based School Discipline: The Misalignment of Executive Order 14280 and Education Research
Center for Racial and Economic Justice
-
Opportunities Lost: The Hidden Cost of Public Education in Pennsylvania K–12 Schools
Center for Racial and Economic Justice
-
Spotlight Research Brief: Exclusionary School Discipline and Student Health and Wellbeing
Center for Racial and Economic Justice
-
State Restorative Justice Legislation 2020 – 2025: Confidentiality, Admissibility & Privilege
Center for Racial and Economic Justice
-
Trend Analysis: State Legislation Expanding the Scope and Use of Exclusionary School Discipline (ESD)
Center for Racial and Economic Justice
-
The Uncertain Future of Restorative Justice: Anti-Woke Legislation, Retrenchment and Politics of the Right
Thalia González and Mara Schiff
-
Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims
Karen B. Musalo Prof.
The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.
-
With Fear, Favor, and Flawed Analysis: Decision-Making in U.S. Immigration Courts
Karen B. Musalo Prof.
Immigration judges (IJs), housed within the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice (DOJ), make decisions in asylum and withholding claims, which are life or death matters. And although their title is “judge,” IJs are DOJ attorneys who lack independence and are particularly susceptible to political pressures. Federal court judges and scholars alike have criticized the quality and fairness of IJ decision-making, and many studies have been carried out to better understand the factors that impact it. The prior studies have relied principally on quantitative data because IJ decisions are not publicly available or searchable in any existing database. The authors of this study had unprecedented access to more than five hundred IJ decisions, allowing for both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. Our findings were consistent with other studies in noting that IJ experience and gender made a difference in case outcomes, with male IJs and IJs with enforcement backgrounds denying protection at higher rates. We were able to identify other significant trends as well, including that the most common reasons why IJs denied protection to credible asylum seekers were their findings that they failed to meet the extremely stringent requirements of two elements of the refugee definition--elements which arguably are overly restrictive and inconsistent with international norms. We also observed patterns of incompetence and bias among these decisions. This Article recommends several policy reforms to address the shortcomings we identify, among them: (1) the creation of Article I immigration courts, (2) improvement of IJ competence through more stringent hiring standards and continuing education, (3) increased diversity of IJs based on employment experience, (4) reduced deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals in reviewing cases, and (5) allocating additional resources to immigration adjudication.
Printing is not supported at the primary Gallery Thumbnail page. Please first navigate to a specific Image before printing.
