Judicial Bias and Religious Assumptions in U.S. Asylum Adjudication

Abstract

This paper examines how religious and cultural assumptions held by immigration judges in the United States can profoundly influence the adjudication of asylum claims. Through detailed analysis of three appellate cases—Yan v. Gonzales, Pavlova v. INS, and Fiadjoe v. Attorney General—the study reveals how judicial decisions are often shaped by unconscious biases rooted in American religious norms and colonialist understandings of non-Western traditions. These biases distort the evaluation of asylum criteria, leading to unjust denials. The paper further explores the historical and ideological roots of these assumptions in U.S. immigration law and proposes concrete legal strategies—including expert testimony and culturally informed legal advocacy—to counteract bias and promote more equitable asylum adjudication.