Immigration Judge’s Assessment of Hardship and Implicit Bias

If I were an immigration judge assessing hardship for purposes of granting or denying applications for cancellation of removal, I would give the most significant weight to the factors discussed on pages 674-675 in Aleinikoff et al. These factors include the length of time the individual has lived in the United States, family ties, and the applicant’s community involvement. The length of time spent in the U.S. is crucial because it reflects the applicant’s integration into society, making deportation more disruptive.

Family ties are also essential, particularly if the applicant is a primary caregiver for U.S. citizen children or spouses, as their removal could cause significant emotional and financial hardship. Community involvement demonstrates that the individual has contributed positively to society and could be seen as an asset rather than a liability. These factors combine to give a well-rounded picture of the applicant’s connections to the United States and the potential impact of removal.

I would also consider adding the applicant’s health condition as an additional factor. This would be especially relevant if removal could lead to a lack of necessary medical treatment, causing significant hardship.

To keep my "implicit bias" in check, I would remain aware of my potential for unconscious bias based on the applicant’s race, nationality, or other personal characteristics, as discussed on page 662. To mitigate bias, I would follow standardized guidelines, base my decisions strictly on the evidence presented, and regularly participate in training on implicit bias to ensure fairness in my determinations.

Did you like this example?

237

10