Skip to main content

U.S. Asylum System: Agencies Have Taken Actions to Help Ensure Quality in the Asylum Adjudication Process, but Challenges Remain

GAO-08-935 Published: Sep 25, 2008. Publicly Released: Sep 25, 2008.
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

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.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Asylum Division To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, the Chief of the Asylum Division should explore ways to provide additional opportunities for asylum officers to observe skilled interviewers.
Closed – Implemented
We found that asylum officers' ability to elicit information through applicant interviews is critical to their ability to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent asylum claims. We further found that 88 percent of asylum officers who responded to our survey reported that having the opportunity to observe interviews conducted by skilled interviewers would help improve officers' interview skills, but 53 percent reported they had not had this opportunity. We recommended that that the Chief of the Asylum Division explore ways to provide these additional opportunities. In response, the Asylum Division, within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), explored ways to accomplish...
Asylum Division To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, the Chief of the Asylum Division should develop a framework for soliciting information in a structured and consistent manner on asylum officers' and supervisors' respective training needs, including, at a minimum, training needs discussed in this report.
Closed – Implemented
Based on the results of surveys we conducted of all asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers, we found that most asylum officers and supervisors who responded to the surveys reported that better or more training was needed to improve asylum officers' ability to adjudicate asylum cases. We further found that the Asylum Division did not have a framework in place for soliciting asylum officers' and supervisors' views on their training needs in a structured and consistent manner. We recommended that the Asylum Division develop a framework for soliciting information in a structured and consistent manner on asylum officers' and supervisors' respective training needs, including, at a...
Asylum Division To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, the Chief of the Asylum Division should ensure that the information collected on training needs is used to provide training to asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers at the offices where the information shows it is needed or nationally, when training needs are common.
Closed – Implemented
In fiscal year 2008, we reviewed and reported on the key factors that affect asylum officers' adjudication of asylum cases. Based on the results of surveys we conducted of all asylum officers and supervisory asylum officers, we found that most asylum officers and supervisors who responded to our surveys reported that better or more training was needed to improve asylum officers' ability to adjudicate asylum cases. We further found that the Asylum Division did not have a framework in place for soliciting asylum officers' and supervisors' views on their training needs in a structured and consistent manner. As such we recommended that, in addition to soliciting information on asylum...
Asylum Division To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, the Chief of the Asylum Division should develop a plan to more fully implement the quality review framework--and complement existing supervisory and headquarters reviews--to include, among other things, how to ensure that in each Asylum Office a sample of decisions of asylum officers are reviewed for quality and consistency and interviews conducted by asylum officers are observed.
Closed – Implemented
In fiscal year 2008, we reviewed and reported on the quality assurance mechanisms that had been designed within the U.S. asylum system to ensure the integrity of the asylum adjudication process. We reported, among other things, that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's (USCIS) Asylum Division's local quality assurance reviews--one of the three tiers of its framework for conducting quality reviews to help ensure the quality and consistency of asylum decisions--did not always occur. We recommended that the Asylum Division develop a plan to more fully implement its quality review framework and ensure that in each asylum office a sample of asylum officers' decisions are reviewed...
Asylum Division To improve the integrity of the asylum adjudication process, the Chief of the Asylum Division should develop a cost-effective way to collect empirical data on the time it takes asylum officers to thoroughly complete the steps in the adjudication process and revise productivity standards, if warranted.
Closed – Implemented
In fiscal year 2008, we reviewed and reported on the key factors that affect asylum officers' adjudication of asylum cases. We found, among other things, that the Asylum Division established a productivity standard without empirical data, and that the standard provided asylum officers with about 4 hours to complete an asylum case. As a result, we recommended that the Asylum Division collect empirical data on the time it takes asylum officers to thoroughly complete the adjudication process and revise productivity standards, if warranted. In response to this recommendation, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration's (USCIS) Office of Policy and Strategy contracted a study to evaluate processes...

Full Report

GAO Contacts

Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
Managing Director
Office of Public Affairs

Public Inquiries

Topics

Claims adjudicatorsClaims processingEligibility criteriaEligibility determinationsEmployee trainingFraudHomeland securityImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration information systemsInternal controlsPolitical refugeesQuality assuranceQuality controlRefugeesReporting requirementsRisk factorsRisk managementSystems analysisSystems evaluationSystems integrityTotal quality managementTraining utilizationAsylumPolicies and proceduresProgram implementation