Abstract
This study compares Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJ), and domestic violence (DV) asylum claims to understand how status is conveyed by the state. These legal procedures shape ideas of worthiness using constructions of “childhood” and “victimhood”. Understanding of the differences between worthy childhood and worthy victimhood can allow us a deeper understanding of how gender, age, and racial dynamics play out in the courtroom and establish distinct levels of “worthiness.” Through in-depth interviews with 13 New York immigration attorneys, I found that, while SIJ presumes minors as “worthy” due to their vulnerability (worthy childhood), more discretionary statuses like asylum require proof of worthiness (worthy victimhood) that is more difficult to achieve. This difference in assumed worthiness manifested in three ways: the way the courts are structured, judicial discretion, and the political atmosphere. First, immigration court, unlike family court, is under the executive branch and has no baseline standard of care like the family court’s best interest of the child standard. SIJ operates in both state family court and immigration court, where it has less of a discretionary status, compared to DV asylum which solely lies in immigration court. Second, judicial discretion plays a significant role, with judges' attitudes based on suspicion, sympathy, respectability politics, and trauma affecting outcomes in asylum and SIJ cases. Third, the political atmosphere can directly impact immigration policies because the immigration courts are under the purview of the executive branch. The constantly changing political landscape makes it hard for attorneys to advise clients accurately. Structural reforms, including an independent judiciary, are essential for fair treatment in the immigration system.