Deirdre Gomez February 13, 2020 Immigration
The Attorney General of the United States is the head of their EOIR and appoints the courts. As I have written in articles, this technique of judicial has ever seemed to me to develop a conflict of interest. In the event the Attorney General appoints the law judges, are these judges be just and to asylum seekers once they owe their occupation to the Attorney General? , I feel the answer is no; not divorce that the political pressure they face from the Attorney General the of their asylum cases.
The history that the process of immigration has been of great , economic, and cultural of nations. As an example, the intellectual of America/Europe is due to brain drain from many or backward societies of the world. Over a hundred immigrants a Nobel Prize in the sphere of Chemistry, Medicine and Physics (inch ). Moreover, the economic of America/Europe is because of synergistic approach among citizens and immigrants. At the alone, immigrants have established or co-founded businesses like Google, Intel, whats app, PayPal, eBay, Tesla and Yahoo! they less than 15 percentage of the population, skilled immigrants account for over half of Silicon Valley startups and over half patents (two ).
The drafters of the Asylum Study opine that the real reason for the differences between the courts might possibly be" cultural" - some courts more likely to grant asylum although others may be demanding on all asylum seekers. , differences in 1 region be due to differences in the populations of asylum seekers in different locations. These explanations be legitimate, the concern remains: justice being functioned to asylum seekers or they being to"Refugee Roulette?"
Decision Our immigration teams are busy tribunals wherein appointed immigration judges must in cases be allowed asylum and who should be refused. It be something which to be just and impartial in its concerning those fleeing persecution. More frequently than not that the immigration courts do not to be and in their .