Document Type
Blog Post
Publication Date
4-2026
Abstract
This article examines the enigmatic nature and blurred boundaries of the discretionary power exercised by immigration judges in asylum cases, highlighting how the scope of such discretion—whether broad or narrow—proves decisive for the applicants and their families. Through a comparative analysis of specific cases, the article underscores the critical importance of immigration judges seeking to discern and follow the true intent of the law—specifically, by deeply understanding and defining the threshold of “persecution,” delineating the boundaries of “political opinion,” and appropriately weighing and prioritizing immigration policies within their specific historical contexts. Furthermore, it is essential that judges conduct a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the evidence presented in asylum cases; for instance, they must determine—by contextualizing the evidence within the specific circumstances of the case—whether a particular action constitutes a purely economic behavior or is, in fact, an act undertaken to express a political opinion. Ultimately, the ability of judges to conduct a holistic and thorough examination of individual cases within their unique socio-historical contexts proves to be of paramount importance.
Recommended Citation
Zhang, Yan, "FLUCTUATING HALLUCINATIONS: ON THE BOUNDARIES OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES’ DISCRETION IN THE DETERMINATION OF ASYLUM BASED ON POLITICAL OPINIONS" (2026). Immigration Law Blog. 23.
https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/ilsblog/23