Detaining Families: A Study of Asylum Adjudication in Family Detention

Detaining Families: A Study of Asylum Adjudication in Family Detention

The United States currently detains more families seeking asylum than any nation in the world, but little is known about how these families fare in the immigration court process. In this Article, we analyze government data from all immigration court cases initiated between 2001 and 2016 to provide the first empirical analysis of asylum adjudication in family detention. We find that families have been detained in remote locations, have faced language barriers in accessing the courts, and, despite valiant pro bono efforts to assist them, have routinely gone to court without legal representation. Only half of the family members who remained detained found counsel, fewer than 2% spoke English, and 93% had their hearings in detention adjudicated remotely over video conference, rather than in a traditional face-to-face courtroom setting.

In addition, the evidence we uncover documents the important, and underappreciated, role that immigration courts have played in limiting the overdetention of migrant families by immigration authorities at the border. During the period studied, immigration judges reversed half of the negative credible fear decisions of asylum officers and systematically lowered the bond amount set by detention officers. We also find high compliance rates among family members who were released from detention: family members seeking asylum attended their immigration court hearings in 96% of cases since 2001. Finally, we document significant regional variation in case outcomes among family members who were released from detention, including whether family members obtained attorneys and won their asylum cases. These and other findings are meaningful to current policy debates regarding the role of immigration courts in maintaining due process in asylum proceedings and the appropriate use of detention to manage the migration of families fleeing violence in their home countries.


More in this Issue

An Analysis of the Lack of Protection for Intangible Tribal Cultural Property in the Digital Age

This Note analyzes how the current push for digitization of library and museum collections exacerbates the infringement and appropriation of intangible tribal cultural property and how current statutory schemes fail to adequately protect such property. Cultural property includes any sacred traditional knowledge essential to tribal ways of life and is often privileged information. Intangible cultural […]

Global South Empowerment or Business as Usual: The Challenges Presented by the New Development Bank’s and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank’s Accountability Mechanisms

This Note discusses two new multilateral development banks (MDBs), the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which are rising to challenge the hegemony of the World Bank and other Western-led development finance institutions. Supporters have argued that these new banks will be sources of empowerment and reclamation, allowing the Global […]


After judges issue final orders and judgments, losing defendants often ask courts to make a determination that may seem to be a mere procedural technicality, but is, instead, a new battleground for injunctive litigation. These judges are deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal—whether to prevent the enforcement of a court order or judgment […]

Saving Governance-By-Design

Governing through technology has proven irresistibly seductive. Everything from the Internet backbone to consumer devices employs technological design to regulate behavior purposefully by promoting values such as privacy, security, intellectual property protection, innovation, and freedom of expression. Legal and policy scholarship has discussed individual skirmishes over the political impact of technical choices—from whether intelligence and […]

The Rise of Federal Title

Why did, and does, the federal government own most of the public domain within the United States? The standard historical answers—that states ceded their lands to the federal government and that the Property Clause confirmed this authority—turn out to be incomplete, masking a neglected process in the 1780s and ’90s in which legitimate ownership came […]

Wrong Turn on the Ex Post Facto Clause

The Ex Post Facto Clause bars any increase in punishment after the commission of a crime. But deciding what constitutes an increase in punishment can be tricky. At the front end of a criminal case, where new or amended criminal laws might lengthen prisoners’ sentences if applied retroactively, courts have routinely struck down such changes […]