How Immigration Judges Read Psychological Evaluations
Mental health professionals who conduct immigration evaluations often share the same underlying concern: Am I actually giving the court what it needs, or could I be unintentionally creating problems for my client?
That question sits at the heart of immigration evaluation training, and it is one this field has struggled to answer clearly. Most clinicians are well trained in diagnosis, assessment, and trauma-informed care. But what is often missing is guidance grounded in how immigration adjudicators actually read, interpret, and rely on psychological evaluations.
In a recent episode of the Beyond Borders podcast, I spoke with David Koelsch, whose perspective brings rare clarity to this gap.
David served as an immigration judge and previously supervised asylum officers at USCIS. Over the course of his career, he reviewed hundreds of psychological evaluations across asylum, VAWA, U and T visas, and cancellation of removal cases. His insights offer a real-world lens into what effective immigration evaluation training must address.
Why Immigration Evaluation Training Is Its Own Skill Set
One of the clearest messages from our conversation is that immigration evaluations are not just standard clinical assessments placed into a legal file.
They are a distinct form of forensic work, with their own expectations, risks, and standards.
David describes immigration evaluations as “their own little world.” Even experienced clinicians can struggle if they approach this work without specialized training. The court is not looking for therapy notes, literary narratives, or advocacy language. It is looking for clear, structured clinical expertise that supports legal decision-making without crossing ethical boundaries.
This is why immigration evaluation training matters. It teaches clinicians how to translate clinical findings into court-relevant information while staying firmly within their expert role.
What Judges Look for in a Strong Immigration Evaluation
According to David, useful evaluations share several consistent features. These are not stylistic preferences. They directly affect how an evaluation is read and weighed.
Clear structure matters.
Evaluations that are organized, easy to navigate, and logically sequenced are easier for adjudicators to digest. Judges are reviewing large volumes of material under intense time pressure. A well-structured report helps them quickly understand what was done, what was found, and why it matters.
Concise where possible, detailed where necessary.
Strong evaluations avoid unnecessary narrative detail about events that are already documented elsewhere. Too much factual detail can create inconsistencies between an evaluation and a client’s declaration or testimony, which can raise credibility concerns. The focus should remain on impact, not exhaustive storytelling.
Qualifications are clearly stated upfront.
Judges want to know immediately who the evaluator is, what licenses they hold, and whether they have specialized training in immigration evaluations. This does not require repeating a full CV, but it does require clarity.
Clinical language stays clinical.
Effective evaluations avoid legal conclusions and advocacy phrasing. Statements about credibility, legal standards, or whether someone “meets the requirements” belong to the court, not the evaluator.
These elements are foundational in quality immigration evaluation training and are often missing when clinicians try to learn this work informally.
The Real Impact of Well Done Immigration Evaluations
In the episode is David’s reminder that psychological evaluations are often game changers, especially in hardship-based cases.
Adjudicators are tasked with making high-stakes decisions about real people, not case numbers. A strong, well-crafted evaluation can help the court understand the human impact of trauma, separation, and loss in ways that legal documents alone cannot.
At the same time, evaluators face their own emotional toll. Unlike treating clinicians, evaluators often see clients only at moments of crisis. This makes ethical structure, boundaries, and support even more important.
Immigration evaluation training is not just about writing better reports. It is about sustaining yourself in this work while doing it responsibly.
Listen to the Full Episode
If you want to hear directly from a former immigration judge about what works, what does not, and how clinicians can write evaluations that truly support the court:
🔊 Listen to the episode here:
This episode is made possible by the Expert Training in Immigration Evaluations.
If you want a clear, structured, and sustainable approach to writing immigration evaluations, this training was created for you. Over 12 weeks, you will learn how to conduct trauma-aware interviews, write court-relevant reports, and avoid the common pitfalls that can unintentionally weaken a case.
