Thread by @ReichlinMelnick

Earlier today I flagged a new document that the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—which houses the immigration court system—sent out to reporters. While this document (justice.gov/eoir/page/file…) claims to bust myths, it is actually quite deceptive.

Here's why:

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1126194073805774850

Let's start at the beginning with EOIR's Myth 1. What's wrong here?

Not everyone with a meritorious claim can navigate the complicated court system to file an asylum application—which must be filed in English—and not every meritorious case wins; some judges deny >95% of cases.

Myth 1 encapsulates the problem with this @DOJ_EOIR document: the myth is that most claims are "meritorious" but the "fact" is a statistic of what % of people who asked for asylum at the border from FY 2008-2018 eventually won asylum.

The fact doesn't directly address the myth.

Onto Myth 2!

Once again, we have a disconnect between the myth and the fact. "Asylum seekers" are people who ask for asylum. But the "fact" reduces asylum seekers to only those who managed to file—in English—Form I-589, Application for Asylum.

Plus, the number is misleading:

Myth 2 says that on average, less than half of people who pass a credible fear interview apply for asylum. But that's deceptive because since the first wave of Central American asylum seekers started arriving in 2014, the rate of non-filing has dropped. In 2018, it was 40%.

Now for Myth 3!

This one is particularly bizarre because the existence of disparities in grant rates isn't controversial; in 2008, the GAO issued a report entitled "Significant Variation Existed in Asylum Outcomes across Immigration Courts and Judges." gao.gov/new.items/d089…

For @DOJ_EOIR to claim that there isn't an issue with disparities in asylum grant rates is genuinely ridiculous. Even the chart they generated to support this stupid claim shows the exact opposite. Their attempt to claim otherwise is pedantry unsupported by even their own facts.

Myth 4 (about failure to appear rates) I addressed here:

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1126194073805774850

Myth 5 (about representation rates) I addressed here, but I'll expand a bit too; a lot of these EOIR-provided "myths" are straight strawmen; I have never once heard someone express that most people who appeal don't have lawyers, because of course they do.

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1126206068953108482

Now Myth 6, which again sets up one strawman (most represented asylum seekers win) and then makes a *bizarre* assertion that there's no real difference between grant rates if you have a lawyer or not.

To be clear, that is deeply wrong, and I've got facts to show why...

EOIR suggests asylum grant rates are "essentially the same" if you have a lawyer or not. But representation makes a HUGE difference.

In FY 2017, 95.1% of unrepresented Guatemalans lost their asylum case, compared to 68.4% of those with lawyers.

trac.syr.edu/immigration/re…

Having a lawyer makes a huge difference across the immigration court system.

Our research from @Ingrid_Eagly shows that having a lawyer makes you twice as likely to win your case if you're detained, and five times more likely if you're non-detained. americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/acces…

Myth 7: Immigration judges are prosecutors? Another strawman; who thinks that?

I *think* EOIR put this in the publication is because of growing congressional pressure to restore independence to immigration judges after recent political meddling, including case completion quotas.

Myth 8: Yet another strawman; no one has said only EOIR has VTC?

Plus, their response is peak "That's your opinion, man." It's legally incoherent to suggest that a court order against some uses of VTC in immigration court would invalidate VTC in Social Security hearing.

Myth 9: EOIR's says due process concerns with VTC are basically made up, which is not true.

And their claim that there's no "statistically significant difference in outcome"? Made up.

How do I know it's made up? Because the GAO said EOIR has never studied this.

EOIR says that there's no statistically significant difference in VTC outcome. But in 2017, the GAO said that "EOIR has not adopted the best practice of ensuring that its VTC program is outcome-neutral because it has not evaluated what, if any, effects VTC has on case outcomes."

Phew. That's only halfway through the myths. Unfortunately, I have to take a break now. Will continue this thread probably tomorrow. But the rest of the myths fall into much of the same traps; misleading conclusions drawn from data, or opinions responding to strawman arguments.

Okay, actually, I'm not going to "debunk" the rest, because they're just EOIR's positions on various different policy areas (often presented in strawman fashion) that EOIR disagrees with. Twitter isn't the right venue for responding to these in depth.