I propose to examine the consequences of reforms to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reforms for decision-making by Courts of Appeals judges by gathering a sample of pre- and post-reform circuit court appeals of BIA decisions covering 1999 to 2007. One of the most important questions for public law scholars is understanding how judges pursue both legal and policy goals, but distinguishing between legal goals and policy goals has proven to be a difficult research problem. The nature of the reforms to the BIA provide an excellent natural experiment that will allow for an empirical test of the consequences of preferences over administrative procedures. The BIA provides mandatory review of decisions made by immigration judges and is thus a critical element of the administrative process. Following 9/11, the BIA underwent several critical procedural reforms, and these reforms have allowed the BIA to double the number of cases it processes. However, all BIA decisions may be appealed to the appropriate federal circuit court. Not surprisingly, the raw number of cases appealed to the federal circuits has increased with the increase in the BIA output, but the rate of appeal has dramatically increased from a pre-reform rate of about 5% to a post-reform rate of 30%. The reforms have raised serious questions about the procedural fairness of the BIA. By gathering a large dataset of pre- and post-reform decisions, I will be able to systematically test whether or not the reforms have had an impact on how Courts of Appeals judges make decisions.
This proposed research will make several contributions. First, it will advance our understanding of how judges pursue a critical set of legal goals. Second, the project will provide insight into the increasingly important issue area of immigration politics. The administration of immigration cases is an overlooked yet central component of immigration policy. Finally, the project will yield a publicly available dataset that will be of use for scholars interested in legal decision making and immigration policy.
