Predicting Danger in Immigration Bond Hearings

• In Event: Immigration and Justice

Abstract

Noncitizens in removal proceedings may be detained long term and under conditions that are indistinguishable from criminal incarceration. Many noncitizens are detained on the basis that they pose a “danger” to the community if they were released while their proceedings are pending. How do immigration judges make these danger determinations? I analyze judicial determinations of dangerousness using original data on immigration bond hearings held during 2013 and 2014. These years overlap with a significant rise in Central American removal cases in immigration courts. Consistent with the group threat theory, which predicts a positive relationship between an increase in the minority population and the dominant group’s perception that the minority population poses a criminal threat, I find that Central American detainees are more likely to be deemed a danger than non-Central American detainees. I also find that detainees who have attorneys have lower odds of being deemed a danger compared to those who lack legal representation. Finally, my analysis shows that detainees with prior violent convictions are more likely to be deemed a danger, regardless of the recency of their last conviction. Together, these findings provide new insights on judicial decision-making in immigration courts and the socio-legal construction of immigrant criminality.

Author

• Emily Ryo, University of Southern California