Source: https://substack.com/redirect/9627a823-b650-4c77-b7ff-cbbc0ffd5ab2?j=eyJ1IjoiMnYxZGY4In0.fpFD7ZGL-GpK7jsEG0J7AEb-8n7L1gfNcpXF52SxLbk AustinKocher@substack.com
You can listen to this one-hour interview between Austin Kocher and researchers at the Migration & Asylum Lab here.
These meticulously researched, non-partisan reports from the Migration & Asylum Lab provide critical information for immigration judges, attorneys, ICE prosecutors, advocacy organizations, and the general public who need accurate, objective data about conditions in countries around the world.
The reports represent independent academic scholarship at its best: rigorous, well-documented, and politically neutral. They don't advocate for any particular outcome in immigration cases. Instead, they present comprehensive evidence that allows all parties—from judges to government attorneys to defense counsel—to make informed decisions based on facts rather than assumptions or incomplete information.
As Elliott explained, these reports fill a crucial gap in how our immigration system functions. Immigration judges need reliable information about country conditions to make fair determinations in asylum cases. Immigration attorneys, particularly those who may be handling cases from countries they're not familiar with, can quickly access authoritative analysis spanning 10-15 pages on specific topics rather than spending countless hours trying to piece together information from scattered sources. Even Department of Homeland Security attorneys benefit from having access to thoroughly researched, academically rigorous documentation of actual conditions in the countries they're dealing with in their cases.
The value of this independent scholarship has become even more apparent as official government sources have become less comprehensive. The Trump administration's new State Department human rights reports have eliminated substantial sections on LGBTQ rights, Indigenous populations, and women's rights, categories of information that have historically been essential for understanding persecution patterns. When asked about these changes, Elliott noted that while State Department reports have always had limitations (they often lack citations and rely on unnamed sources), the recent politicization and elimination of whole categories of reporting undermine their credibility and usefulness across the board.
Read my recent essay on how the Trump administration is politicizing the State Department’s human rights reports, especially by reducing the scope of reporting and reducing accountability for Trump’s allies.
The academic approach that Elliott and Soraya take differs fundamentally from advocacy work. As Elliott emphasized, their role as scholars requires them to maintain independence and objectivity. When they encounter information that might complicate a case (i.e., “bad facts”), they don't hide it. They present all the evidence they find and explain how it fits into the broader context. Their reports aren't trying to prove any particular point; they're trying to document reality as thoroughly and accurately as possible.
This commitment to academic rigor shows up in every aspect of their methodology. Unlike many official reports, these academic publications include comprehensive citations, allowing readers to trace every claim back to its source. They contextualize data by explaining who collected it, what methodology was used, and what might be missing from the picture. When governments stop collecting certain types of data (as Nicaragua has done with gender-based violence statistics since 2022), the reports document that absence as information itself.
Soraya brought a particularly valuable perspective to our conversation, having recently graduated from Lewis and Clark where she worked on reports covering Ecuador and Nicaragua. Her research revealed how dramatically and quickly country conditions can change. Ecuador, considered one of the safest countries in the region as recently as 2012, now has one of the highest homicide rates in Central or South America. This transformation followed the 2016 demobilization of FARC, which created a power vacuum in transnational drug trafficking networks that Ecuadorian crime syndicates, backed by Mexican, Colombian, and Albanian cartels, rushed to fill. The result is that encounters with Ecuadorian nationals at the U.S. border rose dramatically between 2022 and 2024.
The reports combine statistical analysis with individual stories, which are essential to helping judges and attorneys understand what abstract data means in human terms. As Soraya explained, the reports weave together general overviews, important statistics, personal anecdotes that contextualize the data, and historical background that explains how current conditions developed. This approach serves the educational function that everyone in the system needs—providing context that pure statistics or isolated news reports cannot deliver.
The conversation also highlighted the challenging environment that academics face when providing expert testimony. Elliott noted that DHS attorneys increasingly try to impeach expert witnesses not based on the substance of their research, but by surveilling their social media accounts and attacking their political views about immigration policy. This represents a troubling shift away from engaging with evidence on its merits toward ad hominem attacks that serve no one's interests in reaching accurate determinations.
Despite these pressures, both Elliott and Soraya emphasized their commitment to producing objective, fact-based research that serves the system's need for accurate information. The work demonstrates exactly what universities should be doing more of: rigorous scholarship that addresses real-world problems while maintaining academic independence and methodological standards.
When I asked Elliott about the pedagogical value of this approach to applied scholarship, he generously offered to share resources, experiences, and insight with other professors who are interested in taking a similar approach to hands-on research or connecting with him to expand the pool of students contributing to this important work. Someone please take him up on it!
Elliott mentioned that updated reports for Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Cuba will be available by the end of August, along with thematic reports examining LGBT rights, disability issues, and family structures across multiple countries. These resources represent an invaluable tool for everyone who needs reliable, well-documented information about global conditions, from immigration courts to legal practitioners to policymakers to citizens trying to understand the forces driving international migration.
The audio of our full conversation is available above. The discussion goes much deeper into the methodology behind these reports, the specific research challenges they face, and the broader implications for how we understand country conditions in an era of declining government transparency. It's the kind of substantive, evidence-based conversation that benefits anyone trying to understand these complex issues beyond the headlines and political rhetoric.
Read the two existing reports for yourself below or download them from the Migration & Asylum Lab website, with more reports forthcoming later this month.
