Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:25:32.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Represented but unequal: The contingent effect of legal representation in removal proceedings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Emily Ryo Open the ORCID record for Emily Ryo [Opens in a new window]  and
Ian Peacock
Emily Ryo*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law & Sociology, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Los Angeles, California, USA
Ian Peacock
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
*
Emily Ryo, Professor of Law & Sociology, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Los Angeles, CA, USA., Email: eryo@law.usc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Substantial research and policymaking have focused on the importance of lawyers in ensuring access to civil justice. But do lawyers matter more in cases decided by certain types of judges than others? Do lawyers matter more in certain political, legal, and organizational contexts than others? We explore these questions by investigating removal proceedings in the United States—a court process in which immigration judges decide whether to admit noncitizens into the United States or deport them. Drawing on over 1.9 million removal proceedings decided between 1998 and 2020, we examine whether the representation effect (the increased probability of a favorable outcome associated with legal representation) depends on judge characteristics and contextual factors. We find that the representation effect is larger among female (than male) judges and among more experienced judges. In addition, the representation effect is larger during Democratic presidential administrations, in immigration courts located in the Ninth Circuit, and in times of increasing caseload. These findings suggest that the representation effect depends on who the judge is and their decisional environment, and that increasing noncitzens' access to counsel—even of high quality—might be insufficient under current circumstances to ensure fair and consistent outcomes in immigration courts.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 634 - 656
Copyright
© 2021 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

How to cite this article: Ryo, Emily, Ian Peacock. 2021. “Represented but unequal: The contingent effect of legal representation in removal proceedings.” Law & Society Review 55(4): 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12574

Funding information ABF-JPB Foundation Access to Justice Scholars Program; Carnegie Corporation of New York

References

REFERENCES

Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C. 2003. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economics Letters 80(1): 123-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albiston, Catherine, Li, Su, and Nielsen, Laura Beth. 2017. “Public Interest Law Organizations and the Two-Tier System of Access to Justice in the United States.” Law & Social Inquiry 42(4): 990–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Bar Association. 2019. “Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases.” https://perma.cc/UMN5-D83J.Google Scholar
American Bar Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Federal Bar Association, and National Association of Immigration Judges. 2019. “Legal Associations Call for Independent Immigration Court System (AILA Doc. No. 19070802).” American Immigration Lawyers Association. https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2019/legal-associations-call-independent-court-system.Google Scholar
Aschenbrenner, Kate. 2013. “Ripples Against the Other Shore: The Impact of Trauma Exposure on the Immigration Process Through Adjudicators.” Michigan Journal of Race & Law 19(1): 53–111.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam, and Sen, Maya. 2021. “Estimating Judicial Ideology.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 35(1): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul R., and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1997. “The Interplay of Preferences, Case Facts, Context, and Rules in the Politics of Judicial Choice.” Journal of Politics 59(4): 1206-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braman, Eileen, and Nelson, Thomas E. 2007. “Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 940-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Keith J. 2012. “Paying Attention to What Judges Say: New Directions in the Study of Judicial Decision Making.” Annual Review of Law & Social Science 8: 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsenat, Elian. 2013. “Onomastics and Big Data Mining.” Cornell University. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6311.Google Scholar
Cornwell, Erin York, Taylor Poppe, Emily S., and Bea, Megan Doherty. 2017. “Networking in the Shadow of the Law: Informal Access to Legal Expertise through Personal Network Ties.” Law & Society Review 51(3): 635-68.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B. 2003. “Decisionmaking in U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.” California Law Review 91(6): 1457–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Ingrid V., and Shafer, Steven. 2015. “A National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164(1): 1–91.Google Scholar
Engel, Christoph, and Weinshall, Keren. 2020. “Manna from Heaven for Judges: Judges' Reaction to a Quasi-Random Reduction in Caseload.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 17(4): 722-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Lindquist, Stefanie A., eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Executive Office for Immigration Review. 2010. “Lead and Rider Enhancements: Reference Guide.” U.S. Department of Justice. https://perma.cc/2AB3-UPQ4.Google Scholar
Executive Office for Immigration Review. 2020. “Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives Roster by State and City.” U.S. Department of Justice. https://perma.cc/ZF5J-NGDR.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Lee, Epstein. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 323-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1980. “Environmental Constraints on the Behavior of Judges: A Representational Model of Judicial Decision Making.” Law & Society Review 14(2): 343-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, James G., and Cohen, Robert S. 2017. “Administrative Adjudication in the United States.” Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary 37(1): 222-54.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. 2016. “Asylum: Variation Exists in Outcomes of Applications Across Immigration Courts and Judges (GAO-17-72).” https://perma.cc/8JHX-FGZL.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anjum. 2016. “Dead Silent: Heuristics, Silent Motives, and Asylum.” Columbia Human Rights Law Review 48(1): 1–52.Google Scholar
Harris, Allison P., and Sen, Maya. 2019. “Bias and Judging.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 241-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, David. 2016. “The Failure of Immigration Appeals.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164: 1177–238.Google Scholar
Hausman, David, and Srikantiah, Jayashri. 2016. “Time, Due Process, and Representation: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of Continuances in Immigration Court.” Fordham Law Review 84(5): 1823-43.Google Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M., King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2012. “Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching.” Political Analysis 20: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, Amit. 2019. “Bureaucrats in Robes: Immigration “Judges” and the Trappings of “Courts”.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 33: 261–325.Google Scholar
Katzmann, Robert A. 2014. “When Legal Representation is Deficient: The Challenge of Immigration Cases for the Courts.” Daedalus 143(3): 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Catherine Y., and Semet, Amy. 2020. “An Empirical Study of Political Control over Immigration Adjudication.” Georgetown Law Journal 108(3): 579–647.Google Scholar
Koh, Jennifer Lee. 2017. “Removal in the Shadow of Immigration Court.” Southern California Law Review 90(2): 181–235.Google Scholar
Lustig, Stuart L., Delucchi, Kevin, Tennakoon, Lakshika, Kaul, Brent, Marks, Dana Leigh, and Slavin, Denise. 2008a. “Burnout and Stress Among United States Immigration Judges.” Bender's Immigration Bulletin 13: 22–36.Google Scholar
Lustig, Stuart L., Karnik, Niranjan, Delucchi, Kevin, Tennakoon, Lakshika, Kaul, Brent, Marks, Dana Leigh, and Slavin, Denise. 2008b. “Inside the Judges' Chambers: Narrative Responses from the National Association of Immigration Judges Stress and Burnout Survey.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 23(1): 57–83.Google Scholar
Markowitz, Peter, Annobil, Jojo, Caplow, Stacy, Cobb, Peter Z., Morawetz, Nancy, Root, Oren, Slovinsky, Claudia, Cheng, Zhifen, and Nash, Lindsay C. 2011. “Accessing Justice: The Availability and Adequacy of Counsel in Removal Proceedings.” Cardozo Law Review 33: 357–416.Google Scholar
Markowitz, Peter L., and Nash, Lindsay C. 2015. “Constitutional Venue.” Florida Law Review 66: 1153–214.Google Scholar
Marks, Dana Leigh. 2014. “Immigration Judge: Death Penalty Cases in a Traffic Court Setting.” CNN. https://perma.cc/V4R8-629H.Google Scholar
Marouf, Fatma. 2011. “Implicit Bias and Immigration Courts.” New England Law Review 45: 417-48.Google Scholar
Marouf, Fatma, and Herrera, Luz. 2020. “Technological Triage of Immigration Cases.” Florida Law Review 72: 515-74.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57(1): 187-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Banks, Keith, Linda Camp, and Holmes, Jennifer S. 2015a. “Leveling the Odds: The Effect of Quality Legal Representation in Cases of Asymmetrical Capability.” Law & Society Review 49(1): 209-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Banks, Keith, Linda Camp, and Holmes, Jennifer S. 2015b. Immigration Judges and U.S. Asylum Policy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mize, Trenton D. 2019. “Best Practices for Estimating, Interpreting, and Presenting Nonlinear Interaction Effects.” Sociological Science 6: 81–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanos, Elura. 2021. “Justice Gorsuch Calls out Ninth Circuit for Being an ‘Outlier’ in 9–0 Immigration Decision.” Law & Crime. https://perma.cc/GQ84-H4Z5.Google Scholar
Nash, Lindsay. 2019. “Universal Representation: Systemic Benefits and the Path Ahead.” Journal on Migration & Human Security 7(3): 103-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintanilla, Victor D., Allen, Rachel A., and Hirt, Edward R. 2017. “The Signaling Effect of Pro Se Status.” Law & Social Inquiry 42(4): 1091–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Wistrich, Andrew J. 2017. “Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges.” Annual Review of Law & Social Science 13: 203-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramji-Nogales, Jaya, Schoenholtz, Andrew I., and Schrag, Philip G. 2007. “Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication.” Stanford Law Review 60(2): 295–411.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah L., and Cummings, Scott L. 2017. “Access to Justice: Looking Back, Thinking Ahead.” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 30(3): 485–500.Google Scholar
Rogol, Natalie C., Montgomery, Matthew D., and Kingsland, Justin T. 2018. “Going Public: Presidential Impact on Supreme Court Decision-Making.” Justice System Journal 39(3): 210-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottman, Andy J., Fariss, Christopher J., and Poe, Steven C. 2009. “The Path to Asylum in the US and the Determinants for Who Gets In and Why.” International Migration Review 43: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryo, Emily. 2016. “Detained: A Study of Immigration Bond Hearings.” Law & Society Review 50(1): 117-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryo, Emily. 2017. “Fostering Legal Cynicism through Immigration Detention.” Southern California Law Review 90: 999–1053.Google Scholar
Ryo, Emily. 2018. “Representing Immigrants: The Role of Lawyers in Immigration Bond Hearings.” Law & Society Review 52(2): 503-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandefur, Rebecca L. 2008. “Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class and Gender Inequality.” Annual Review of Sociology 34: 339-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandefur, Rebecca L. 2015. “Elements of Professional Expertise: Understanding Relational and Substantive Expertise through Lawyers' Impact.” American Sociological Review 80(5): 909-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisted. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slavin, Denise Noonan, and Marks, Dana Leigh. 2011. “Conflicting Roles of Immigration Judges: Do you Want your Case Heard by a ‘Government Attorney’ or by a ‘Judge’?” Bender's Immigration Bulletin 16: 1785-92.Google Scholar
Srikantah, Jayashri, Hausman, David, and Weissman-Ward, Lisa. 2015. “Access to Justice for Immigrant Families and Communities: A Study of Legal Representation of Detained Immigrants in Northern California.” Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 11(2): 207-36.Google Scholar
Szmer, John, and Ginn, Martha Humphries. 2014. “Examining the Effects of Information, Attorney Capability, and Amicus Participation on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Politics Research 42(3): 441-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Margaret H. 2007. “Refugee Roulette in an Administrative Law Context: The Déjà Vu of Decisional Disparities in Agency Adjudication.” Stanford Law Review 60(2): 475–502.Google Scholar
Taylor Poppe, Emily S., and Rachlinski, Jeffrey J. 2016. “Do Lawyers Matter? The Effect of Legal Representation in Civil Disputes.” Pepperdine Law Review 43(4): 881–944.Google Scholar
TRAC Immigration. 2020a. “New Deportation Proceedings Filed in Immigration Court.” Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/charges/deport_filing_charge.php.Google Scholar
TRAC Immigration. 2020b. “Immigration Court Backlog Tool.” Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/.Google Scholar
TRAC Immigration. 2020c. “State and County Details on Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Court.” Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/nta/.Google Scholar
Zimerman, Nourit, and Tyler, Tom R. 2010. “Between Access to Counsel and Access to Justice: A Psychological Perspective.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 37: 473–507.Google Scholar

CASE CITED

Lehmann v. Carson, 353 U.S. 685 (1957).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ryo and Peacock supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 42.3 KB