Constitutional Law

Immigrants Seeking Asylum In U.S. Harmed By DOJ Hiring Debacle

Additional analysis of the Justice Department reports that uncovered political considerations for non-political jobs within the Department, reveals that more of the politically appointed immigration judges have “disproportionately” rejected immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. According to further study of the two DOJ reports, which are available here and here, sixteen immigration judges chosen because of their conservative affiliations “as a group ruled against asylum-seekers significantly more often than colleagues who were appointed, as the law requires, under politically neutral rules.” Bruce Einhorn, a law professor at Pepperdine University, told The New York Times that the immigration court “is now the seat of individuals who were appointed illegally, and that means that in the minds of many people the court symbolizes illegality.”

The reports from the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) revealed that top aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used political criteria in seeking to fill non-political positions within the Justice Department. The first report, issued June 24, showed that candidates for nonpolitical jobs and internships were rejected because of their affiliations with progressive organizations, including the American Constitution Society. ACS Executive Director Lisa Brown responded to the Justice Department hiring controversy in a special video message available here and in a commentary for TPM Café, which is available here. For more ACS coverage of the DOJ hiring controversy, see blog posts here and here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on August 26, 2008 (boomark / email).