By Molly Giguiere*
Click here for the PDF version.
The unfortunate reality is that many people seeking asylum in the United States are survivors of trauma. Trauma is inherent to the very persecution they are trying to flee. For women, there are more significant gendered impacts of conflict and identity-based persecution that heighten the effects of trauma on the asylum-seeking population. All the more, the asylum processing programs in the United States are poorly equipped—albeit deliberately designed—to handle survivors of trauma. This issue was amplified by the newly instated Family Expedited Removal Management (“FERM”) program in 2023. Part I introduces FERM to showcase the changes to the U.S. asylum processing procedures produced by its enactment. While the program has numerous problematic aspects, this piece focuses on the legal proceedings associated with it and how they are ill-equipped to serve asylum seekers. By explaining the psychological impacts and gendered implications of trauma on displaced women, Parts II, III, and IV highlight how FERM is not fit to address asylum seekers’ true needs. Finally, Parts V and VI explore possible legal avenues to create a more trauma-informed asylum processing program in the United States.
I. Expedited Removal
The FERM program places parents and children apprehended at the U.S. border into a rapid screening process that purports to identify asylum claims while keeping families under heavy surveillance.[1] Drawing on practices from the carceral and criminal probation systems, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) mandates that one parent wear an ankle monitor and remain inside the family home at nighttime, effectively amounting to house arrest, regardless of whether the family is in civil or criminal asylum processing.[2] ICE facilitates the FERM program by monitoring families, managing their detention, and bringing them to their asylum interviews and hearings.[3] When families reach their destination cities, they are often given only a few days—sometimes just twenty-four hours—before facing a crucial evaluation: the credible fear interview.[4] This interview is the first step in assessing whether they can pursue an asylum claim.[5] If families’ claims are not found to be credible, they are only allowed one week to appeal the decision and have their case reviewed by an immigration judge.[6] If they receive a final adverse credible fear determination, families are typically removed from the U.S. within thirty days of their initial processing with ICE.[7]
II. The Psychology of Trauma
In applying for asylum, all applicants must show that they are unwilling or unable to return to their countries of origin because they have been persecuted there or have a well-founded fear of future persecution.[8] Inherent to many refugees’ experiences of persecution and violence, causing them to flee their home countries and seek asylum in the United States, are experiences of trauma.[9] Trauma profoundly affects an individual’s brain, which can, in turn, affect their behavior and how they remember their lived experiences.[10] This psychological understanding of trauma is particularly important in judicial asylum proceedings, as the emotional state of survivors can significantly impact the proceedings by affecting their testimony and courtroom credibility.[11]
When trying to recall traumatic experiences, a person may struggle to remember events chronologically and, at times, experience memory loss from psychological dissociation from the memory.[12] These psychological roadblocks can lead to confusion in trauma victims when talking about their experiences.[13] Their behavior and demeanor may change due to the effects of trauma on their brain.[14] When testifying about their past persecution, asylum seekers who have experienced trauma can present behaviors that are typically associated with lying, such as nervousness and sweating.[15] They often veer away from talking about their perpetrators’ actions or find themselves getting angry or making accusations during the proceedings.[16] For many, it can be a lengthy, time-consuming experience to even begin recounting a traumatic experience.[17] Supposing judges are not familiar with the psychological impact of trauma, they could damage the testimony of trauma victims by assessing their credibility based on preconceived notions of how a traumatized person is “supposed” to behave.[18]
This issue can be intensified by cultural factors,[19] as there are often linguistic barriers between asylum seekers and their evaluators.[20] In family processing, it is not uncommon for older family members to plan on using younger family members as interpreters.[21] However, as interpreters, they may withhold certain details or omit entire experiences to shield more vulnerable relatives from distressing information.[22] Additionally, culture can impact how people express their emotions, especially how they navigate past traumatic events.[23] So, actors in asylum processing operations—from ICE officers and officials to asylum judges—must not only be informed of the more physiological and psychological impacts of trauma but also of cultural norms in various international contexts, which can inform the way refugees express their emotions and share their experiences.
III. Asylum Processing
In the past, many asylum applicants underwent the credible fear interview.[24] Some proceeded to further asylum merits interviews with asylum officers, and some others advanced to adversarial courtroom proceedings.[25] Since the instatement of FERM, far more people have been plunged into the adversarial system to receive asylum.[26] Under FERM, judges or officers make the ultimate decision in some interviews, and judges—not juries—make decisions in expedited hearings, where most asylum seekers testify without representation.[27] In these proceedings, a judge may evaluate various forms of evidence, including the asylum seeker’s testimony, statements from witnesses, documentation detailing the asylum seeker’s experiences, and information on country conditions, such as human rights reports from the State Department or reputable non-profit and non-governmental organizations.[28] Asylum seekers’ testimony is primarily relied upon in these proceedings to make a determination.[29] However, many studies indicate that participating in judicial proceedings can pose a risk of retraumatization for trauma victims if those proceedings are not carefully structured and sensitively carried out.[30] Trauma can affect how survivors provide testimony, which can, in turn, influence both the effectiveness and smooth progression of judicial proceedings.[31] This unveils a real problem with the reliability of courtroom proceedings for asylum seekers and shows its ultimately damaging effects.
Asylum officers involved in the previous non-adversarial asylum merits interviews used to participate in specialized training on a periodic, regular basis, allowing them to understand the nuances of working with refugees and vulnerable migrants.[32] However, under the FERM program today, refugees are no longer placed in the asylum officer interview setting but are instead thrust into the courtroom, where no such trainings are required for judges or officers of the court.[33] Consequently, judges are not tuned into the nuances of the psychological effects of trauma on the brain. Many of the behaviors, issues with memory, feelings of confusion, and emotional blocks reemerge when victims of trauma are forced to recount their traumatic experiences in court, which can read as a lack of credibility or honesty.[34]
When a judge misinterprets a trauma victim’s behavior as not credible and denies them asylum—which occurs all too frequently—it is very difficult to overturn the decision.[35] An immigration judge’s factual determinations, including assessments of the asylum seeker’s credibility, are reviewed under a standard that gives significant deference to the judge’s findings.[36] The review standard asks whether, in considering all of the circumstances, it is clear that no reasonable fact-finder could have reached the same negative credibility conclusion.[37] Additionally, in Garland v. Ming Dai, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously made it more difficult for a circuit court reviewing an asylum case to rely on the testimony of the asylum seeker in a proceeding, giving more discretion to judges’ credibility findings than anything else.[38]
Furthermore, judges frequently list certain factors in their credibility assessments as reasons not to believe asylum seekers’ testimonies, such as inconsistency in the applicant’s story, the applicant’s demeanor, and inconsistencies between the applicant’s story and external evidence.[39] A study found that in seventy-six percent of cases in which judges denied asylum, they cited at least two of these factors as a basis for a negative credibility finding.[40] When judges relied on traits other than demeanor during the applicant’s testimony, they often described the testimony as “implausible,” “vague,” “lacking in detail,” “unresponsive,” or “evasive.”[41] Judges less commonly characterized an applicant’s testimony using terms like “confusing,” “hesitant,” “disjointed,” “incoherent,” or “unreliable.”[42] This highlights the unfortunate effects of immigration judges lacking knowledge about the psychology of trauma, as symptoms that indicate that an asylum seeker has experienced trauma are often weaponized against them to deny their claim.
IV. Women and Trauma
The courts’ inability to properly assess trauma victims in refugee hearings disproportionately impacts women.[43] Already, women, whether or not they are asylum seekers, are less likely to be believed in the courtroom setting as witnesses.[44] The U.S. judicial system has a gender bias, which generally weighs against finding credibility in women’s testimonies.[45] Global epidemiological studies find that women experience higher rates of depression and anxiety disorders, while men are more likely to suffer from substance use disorders.[46] The same studies indicate a higher prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among women, “with a ratio of about 2:1 to males.”[47] Women seeking asylum reported higher levels of emotional distress, physical symptoms, and issues related to sexual dysfunction.[48]
Sexism and cultural factors globally that enforce patriarchal practices act as a causative factor to young women’s increased risk of experiencing sexual violence.[49] In general, types of traumatic experiences differ between men and women, with women more often being exposed to high-impact interpersonal, sexual, or gender-based trauma than men.[50] For example, research found that women are more strongly affected by war than men.[51] Refugee women frequently endure gender-based trauma, which can involve forms of sexual violence such as rape, forced pregnancy, coerced abortion, sex trafficking, sexual slavery, and the deliberate transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.[52] Research has shown that women and girls who are displaced are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence, such as rape, intimate partner sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, coerced sex, and sex trafficking in humanitarian crises.[53] What is more, women are more frequently subject to high-impact violence of this nature earlier in their lives, which is associated with a higher risk of post-traumatic stress disorder.[54] Women’s experiences of trauma, both in type and intensity, are shaped by their gender and put them at a unique risk.
Women are more likely than men to be processed via the FERM program.[55] This is because the program specifically targets families—in other words, family groups traveling with minors.[56] Children migrating more often tend to migrate with their mothers than their fathers,[57] reflecting global expectations placed upon women to take on caretaking responsibilities with family and children. Thus, an asylum processing system that focuses on adults traveling with their underage children naturally implicates a larger number of women. This disparate impact, inherent to the very design of the FERM program, means that women’s needs as asylum seekers should be at the forefront of legal scholars’ and policymakers’ considerations in this field. A solid understanding of the challenges faced by female asylum seekers is essential to developing a more effective and equitable family processing system. The United States now stands at a crossroads: It can either address the needs of affected populations to ensure fairness and justice in asylum processing, or—whether intentionally or not—allow its asylum system to reinforce inequality and retraumatize those it is meant to protect.
V. Conflicts with Principles of the U.S. Legal System
Existing law should work to protect refugees through the asylum process. The right to asylum was enshrined in U.S. law through the Refugee Act of 1980, enacted to protect individuals fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”[58] The Refugee Act intended to ensure that individuals seeking asylum in the United States or at its borders would not be sent back to the very places where they faced persecution.[59]
Several principles of the U.S. judicial system are inconsistent with how asylum seekers are actually treated in court. First, entry-related offenses in the United States are prosecuted as crimes.[60] More specifically, 8 U.S.C. section 1325 makes it a crime to enter the United States unlawfully.[61] It applies to individuals who do not enter the country with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or make false statements while entering or attempting to enter.[62] Second, 8 U.S.C. section 1326 makes it unlawful to reenter, attempt to reenter, or be found in the United States unlawfully after being deported, ordered removed, or denied admission.[63] In recent years, offenses under Sections 1325 and 1326 have collectively become the most frequently prosecuted crimes at the federal level.[64] As of December 2018, these violations accounted for sixty-five percent of all criminal prosecutions in American federal courts.[65] To defend against these charges, individuals can attempt to seek asylum.[66]
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial guaranteed all defendants facing imprisonment the right to an attorney.[67] However, unlike in all other criminal proceedings in the United States, asylum seekers oftentimes move through their trials without being provided legal representation;[68] thus, a significant number of people navigating the criminal legal system are denied their right to counsel.
VI. Applying a Presumption of Credibility
As explained in Part III, under FERM, far more people have been sent into the adversarial system to receive asylum as opposed to asylum-processing interviews outside the courtroom.[69] If these proceedings are to remain in the adversarial courtroom, there should be a presumption of credibility applied to an asylee’s claims, similar to the presumption of innocence afforded to defendants in other types of criminal cases.
The presumption of innocence allows individuals to be presumed innocent until their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.[70] In contrast, no presumption of innocence is granted to asylum seekers. Instead, the court merely considers whether they can justify their illegal entry into the country.[71] In this process, their stories are also not assumed to be credible.[72] In fact, most unrepresented asylum seekers are not found to be credible, and their pleas to remain in the United States are denied.[73] In 2020, over seventy percent of asylum seekers were denied asylum.[74] For this reason, courts should adopt a presumption of credibility until proven false; whether in a civil or criminal case, a presumption of innocence or credibility is necessary to ensure fairness, integrity, and due process in judicial proceedings.
Support for this presumption can be found in the Supreme Court’s decision in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., where Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority in a case concerning an exorbitant filing fee for divorce proceedings, held that government action demands different standards of access to the justice system.[75] In asylum proceedings, the government wields its power against asylum seekers in ways that can have even more severe consequences than those at issue in M.L.B. This reality justifies extending key protections of the criminal legal system to asylum seekers, whether their charges are civil or criminal. A presumption of credibility is a logical step toward allowing them the same protections afforded to other defendants across the legal system.
Conclusion
The U.S. judicial system is currently putting asylum seekers through an expedited process in adversarial courtroom settings with officials who are ill-equipped to assess asylum claims in a culturally competent manner. The United States must either make fundamental changes to its treatment of asylum seekers and implement better training for courtroom officials in these settings, or—better yet—move away from handling these proceedings in an adversarial setting altogether. Until then, a system intended to protect those who have experienced trauma will continue to fail to understand and address the needs of its target demographic. This lack of understanding is retraumatizing, damaging, and ultimately hurting asylum seekers who deserve refuge in the United States.
* J.D., University of San Francisco School of Law, 2025; B.A., The George Washington University, 2021. Many thanks to Professor Lindsay M. Harris for advising me throughout the writing process. Thanks also to the U.S.F. Law Review staff for their hard work in bringing this piece to life and to my family for their endless support.
[1]. ICE Announces New Process for Placing Family Units in Expedited Removal, U.S. Immigr.
& Customs Enf’t (May 10, 2023), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-announces-new
-process-placing-family-units-expedited-removal [https://perma.cc/7HU5-8YZ7].
[2]. Nat’l Immigrant Just. Ctr., ICE’s Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM) Program Puts Families at Risk 2 (Aug. 2023), https://immigrantjustice.org
/sites/default/files/content-type/research-item/documents/2024-01/NIJC-policy-brief-FERM-August-2023-FINAL-v2.pdf [https://perma.cc/XSM3-RACA].
[3]. ICE Announces New Process for Placing Family Units in Expedited Removal, supra note 1.
[4]. Too Fast for Fairness: “Expedited Removal” and the Family Expedited Removal Management Program, Nat’l Immigrant Just. Ctr. (Jan. 11, 2024), https://immigrantjustice.org/research-items
/explainer-too-fast-fairness-expedited-removal-and-family-expedited-removal [https://perma.cc
/EY65-9L5C].
[7]. ICE Announces New Process for Placing Family Units in Expedited Removal, supra note 1.
[8]. Asylum in the United States, Am. Immigr. Council 1, 2 (Jan. 15, 2024), https://www
.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states#:~:text=In%20order%20to
%20be%20granted,persecution%20in%20their%20home%20country [https://perma.cc/9BQ7
-RML2].
[9]. Traumatic Experiences of Refugees, Refugee Health (2022), https://www.refugeehealthta
.org/physical-mental-health/mental-health/adult-mental-health/traumatic-experiences-of
-refugees/ [https://perma.cc/72H5-G9Z9]; Refugee Trauma, Nat’l Child. Traumatic Stress Network, https://www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-trauma/trauma-types/refugee-trauma#page [https://perma.cc/Q7XC-VBTZ].
[10]. Deryn Strange & Melanie K. T. Takarangi, Memory Distortion for Traumatic Events: The Role of Mental Imagery, 6 Frontiers in Psychiatry, no. 27, Feb. 23, 2015, at 1.
[11]. John D. Ciorciari & Anne Heindel, Trauma in the Courtroom, in Cambodia’s Hidden Scars: Trauma Psychology in the Wake of the Khmer Rouge 122, 130 (Beth Van Schaack et al. eds., 2011).
[12]. Strange & Takarangi, supra note 10.
[14]. See Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., HHS Pub. No. (SMA) 14-4816, A Treatment Improvement Protocol: Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services 59 (2014).
[15]. Nicholas Narbutas, The Ring of Truth: Demeanor and Due Process in U.S. Asylum Law, 50 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 349, 367 (2018).
[16]. See Nat’l Resource Ctr. for Reaching Victims, Enhancing Legal Advocacy Through a Trauma-Informed Approach 1 (July 2019), https://ilaging.illinois.gov/content
/dam/soi/en/web/aging/protectionadvocacy/aps-toolkit/resources-and-handouts_creating
-culturally-responsive-and-trauma-informed-legal-services.pdf [https://perma.cc/J2CJ-7KJC].
[17]. See Bessel van der Kolk, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and the Nature of Trauma, 2 Dialogues Clinical Neuroscience 7, 10 (2000); see also Supporting Survivors of Trauma: How to Avoid Re-Traumatization, Online MSW Programs, https://www.onlinemswprograms.com/resources/how-to
-be-mindful-re-traumatization/ [https://perma.cc/BVX6-5GXE].
[18]. Narbutas, supra note 15, at 368–69.
[19]. Julian D. Ford et al., Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 507 (2d ed. 2015).
[20]. Bobbi-Jeanne Misick, Seeking Asylum in the U.S. Is Not Easy. It’s Harder When You Speak a Rare Language, WWNO (Feb. 3, 2022, 1:08 PM), https://www.wwno.org/immigration/2022-02-03
/seeking-asylum-in-the-u-s-is-not-easy-its-harder-when-you-speak-a-rare-language [https://perma.cc/3PSC-WELB].
[21]. The Dangers of Using Children as Their Parents’ Interpreters, Dynamic Language (Sept.
26, 2019), https://www.dynamiclanguage.com/the-dangers-of-using-children-as-their-parents
-interpreters/ [https://perma.cc/3F6S-6MT5].
[22]. See id.; see also Why Family Members Shouldn’t Play the Role of Interpreter, Globo, https://www
.helloglobo.com/blog/why-family-members-shouldnt-play-the-role-of-interpreter [https://perma
.cc/YJK6-WHAG].
[23]. Ford et al., supra note 19.
[24]. See generally Credible Fear Screenings, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/credible-fear-screenings [https://perma.cc/WU82-ZQE2].
[25]. See Nat’l Immigrant Just. Ctr., supra note 2; Questions and Answers: Credible Fear Screening, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (Jan. 10, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian
/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-credible-fear-screening [https://perma.cc
/ZW5P-4PQ9].
[26]. See Nat’l Immigrant Just. Ctr., supra note 2.
[28]. Linnea VanPilsum-Bloom, An Illogical and Harmful Assessment: Credibility Findings in Trauma Survivor Asylum Applicants, Minn. J.L. & Ineq.: Ineq. Inquiry Blog (2022), https://
lawandinequality.org/2022/04/18/an-illogical-and-harmful-assessment-credibility-findings-in-trauma-survivor-asylum-applicants/ [https://perma.cc/A5N7-GAJF].
[30]. Ciorciari & Heindel, supra note 11, at 122.
[32]. Asylum Division Training Programs, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. (Dec. 19, 2016), https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/asylum-division-training
-programs [https://perma.cc/64RU-LD6G].
[33]. See Nat’l Immigrant Just. Ctr., supra note 2, at 1. Compare U.S. Dep’t of Just.
AILA Doc. No. 16051201, Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration
Judge Training (2022), https://assets.aila.org/files/12195915-2049-47ae-a46c-4ce558d01d7b
/16051201a.pdf?1697590569 [https://perma.cc/K7Z5-RBCE], with Memorandum from Ted Kim, Acting Chief, Asylum Division, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., to All Asylum Office Staff on Updated Procedures for Determination of Initial Jurisdiction Over Asylum Applicants Filed by Unaccompanied Alien Children 301 (May 28, 2013), https://www.aila.org/files/o-files/view-file
/261B6E8A-95AB-470E-A532-005EA4360D23 [https://perma.cc/8FU5-2JTB ] (showing that asylum officers receive trauma-informed training, unlike immigration judges).
[34]. Aruna Sury & Kate Mahoney, Challenging an Immigration Judge’s Adverse Credibility Finding with the Board of Immigration Appeals (Part Two)
2–3 (2023), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/Challenging%20a%20Judge%27s
%20Findings%20%28Part%20Two%29.pdf [https://perma.cc/5DSD-BACV]; Hannah Rogers et al., The Importance of Looking Credible: The Impact of the Behavioural Sequelae of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on the Credibility of Asylum Seekers, 21 Psych., Crime & L. 139, 139–40 (2015) (UK).
[35]. Sury & Mahoney, supra note 34, at 1–2.
[36]. VanPilsum-Bloom, supra note 28.
[38]. Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1678 (2021).
[39]. Stephen Paskey, Telling Refugee Stories: Trauma, Credibility, and the Adversarial Adjudication of Claims for Asylum, 56 Santa Clara L. Rev. 457, 475–76, 525 (2016).
[43]. See Patricia Fersch, Gender Bias in the Courts: Women Are Not Believed, Forbes (Apr. 6, 2023, 1:55 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/patriciafersch/2023/04/05/gender-bias-in-the-courts
-women-are-not-believed/?sh=591bd435751b [https://perma.cc/UA28-245C].
[46]. Perjan Taha & Marit Sijbrandij, Gender Differences in Traumatic Experiences, PTSD, and Relevant Symptoms Among the Iraqi Internally Displaced Persons, 18 Int’l J. Env’t Rsch. Pub. Health, Sept. 16, 2021, at 1, 2.
[50]. Amy Novotney, Women Who Experience Trauma Are Twice as Likely as Men to Develop PTSD. Here’s Why, Am. Psych. Ass’n (Apr. 13, 2023), https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/women
-trauma#:~:text=This%20disparity%20is%20in%20part,and%20at%20a%20younger%20age [https://perma.cc/Y9SC-T6H9].
[51]. Thomas Plümper & Eric Neumayer, The Unequal Burden of War: The Effect of Armed Conflict on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 60 Int’l Org. 723, 724 (2006).
[52]. Macarena Vallejo-Martin et al., Refugee Women with a History of Trauma: Gender Vulnerability in Relation to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 18 Int’l J. Env’t Rsch. & Pub. Health 1, 3 (2021).
[55]. Gender Bias and Immigration Policy, Legal Momentum, https://www.legalmomentum
.org/gender-bias-and-immigration-policy [https://perma.cc/CZE4-WELQ].
[56]. ICE Announces New Process for Placing Family Units in Expedited Removal, supra note 1.
[57]. Rachel Marcus et al., U.N. Int’l Child. Emergency Fund, Children Who Stay Behind in Latin America and the Caribbean While Parents Migrate 6 (2023), https://www.unicef.org/lac/media/40976/file/children-who-stay-behind.pdf [https://perma.cc/J7UF-2V2V].
[58]. Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102.
[64]. Am. Immigr. Council, Prosecuting People for Coming to the United States 2 (2021), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research
/prosecuting_people_for_coming_to_the_united_states.pdf [https://perma.cc/VDL6-9377].
[67]. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 339–40 (1963).
[68]. Am. Immigr. Council, Asylum in the United States 2 (2024), https://www
.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/asylum_in_united_states_update
_jan_2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/G98P-NDAT].
[69]. See Nat’l Immigrant Just. Ctr., supra note 2.
[70]. E.g., Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 490 (1978); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 524 (1979).
[71]. See Am. Immigr. Council, How the Immigration System Falls Short
of American Ideals of Justice: Two Systems of Justice 7 (2013) https://www
.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/aic_twosystemsofjustice.pdf [https://perma.cc/BM8V-GAP3].
[72]. See Fatma Marouf, Immigration Law’s Missing Presumption, 111 Geo. L.J. 983, 1004 (2023).
[73]. See Asylum Denial Rates Continue to Climb, Kitsap Immigrant Assistance Ctr. (Oct. 29, 2025), https://kitsapiac.org/asylum-denial-rates-continue-to-climb/ [https://perma.cc/L92G
-GSCX].