What Attorneys Actually Need From Your Immigration Evaluations: Insights From the First National Study
Most clinicians who conduct immigration evaluations share a quiet worry:
Am I actually giving attorneys what they need, and am I supporting the case rather than unintentionally harming it?
It’s a valid concern. Immigration evaluations carry legal weight, shape credibility, and influence decisions that determine whether families stay together. Clinicians want to do this work well. What has been missing, until now, is clarity grounded in data rather than guesswork or scattered guidance.
In a recent podcast episode, I spoke with Dr. Andrew Rasmussen, the psychologist leading the first national study examining what makes psychological evaluations credible, useful, and relevant in immigration court. His work fills a gap that has existed for decades in our field.
This article highlights what we discussed, why it matters for your practice, and how it can strengthen your approach to immigration psychological evaluation training.
Why Dr. Rasmussen’s Work Matters
Despite the growing demand for immigration evaluations, there has never been a systematic, national look at:
What attorneys actually need from evaluators
Which report elements strengthen or weaken a case
How clinicians can stay objective while addressing trauma
What judges find credible or dismissive
How to write evaluations that reflect real-world legal relevance
Dr. Rasmussen and his team have now gathered input from more than 200 immigration attorneys and DOJ representatives across the United States. Their feedback is consistent, practical, and deeply relevant for any clinician who conducts immigration evaluations or is training to do so.
The Gap Between Clinical Training and Immigration Court
One theme came up again and again in our conversation:
“What mental health professionals are trained to do in clinical settings does not always translate into what the court needs.”
Attorneys described common challenges such as:
Reports with too much narrative detail, making testimony harder
Reports with too little detail, leaving gaps in key areas
“PTSD only” diagnoses, which some judges now dismiss as expected or overused
Evaluators drifting into legal conclusions, outside their scope
Inconsistencies or errors that raise credibility questions
Long, unfocused reports that overwhelm rather than clarify
These issues do not stem from carelessness. They stem from a lack of guidance. Clinicians simply have not been given clear, empirically grounded standards for this type of forensic work.
This is exactly why training matters and why clinicians seek structured, ethical systems for conducting immigration evaluations.
What You’ll Learn From the Episode
If you conduct immigration evaluations or are training to do so, this episode offers rare clarity.
You will learn:
Why a clear referral question changes the trajectory of your report and how to make sure you are answering the psycho-legal question the court actually cares about
How too much or too little detail can unintentionally undermine the case and how to strike the right balance between narrative, diagnosis, and relevance
Why “PTSD only” reports often weaken credibility and how to describe trauma effects in ways grounded in evidence rather than assumptions
What attorneys truly want in a court-ready evaluation based on data from more than 200 attorneys nationwide
How to stay in your expert role without drifting into legal conclusions even when attorneys push for more advocacy than is appropriate
Where the field is heading including emerging expectations around rigor, objectivity, and evaluation structure
These insights are essential for clinicians who want their evaluations to be ethical, objective, trauma-aware, and legally relevant.
Why This Matters for Your Practice
Strong immigration evaluations do more than document distress. They:
help the court contextualize trauma
support credibility in testimony
clarify the psychological impact of persecution, violence, or hardship
protect your license by keeping you firmly within your expert role
strengthen attorney partnerships
reduce RFEs, rewrites, and unnecessary back-and-forth
make your practice more sustainable and efficient
Whether you are new to this work or highly experienced, Dr. Rasmussen’s research offers guidance that has long been missing in immigration psychological evaluation training.
Listen to the Full Conversation
To hear the full discussion and apply these insights to your own evaluations:
🔊 Listen to the episode here:
This episode will help you write evaluations that honor your clients’ trauma, remain clinically grounded, and support, not jeopardize, the legal case.
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.
