It appears that the Obama administration is employing a double standard in the adjudication of the DREAM 30's credible fear interviews. 9 of 25 (36%) have been denied despite the fact that the individuals were all able to articulate a significant possibility of persecution on account of an enumerated ground for asylum. The national average for denials is 9.4%.

From the information I have received none of the denials were based on adverse credibility, which is most telling as the "significant possibility" threshold is principally determined after an assessment of the statements made by the applicant during pre-screening.

The only adverse credible fear determinations I've ever heard of involve non-English speakers, that are unrepresented by counsel, with obvious discrepancies in their border interviews. In sum, almost everyone passes their credible fear interview. It should also be noted that all 9 of the DREAM 9 passed their credible fear interviews. It should also be noted that I've never had a single client in the entirety of my career fail to establish credible fear at the border. It is almost unheard of.

Looks like the administration is making an example out of the DREAM 30 in order to make a political point. Nothing like playing politics with the lives of immigrants.

Par for the course.