Competency to Stand Trial in Immigration Proceedings

• Published in: Translational issues in psychological science 2021-03, Vol.7 (1), p.55-64
• Main Authors: Rosinski, Amanda, Weiss, Rebecca A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adjudication; Competency to Stand Trial; Forensic Evaluation; Human; Immigration; Judges; Psychiatric Evaluation; Risk Factors
• ISSN: 2332-2136; 2332-2179
• DOI: 10.1037/tps0000244

Competency to stand trial (CST) is a legal construct developed in the 18th century to ensure that defendants are capable of participating in their trials. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court extended this due process right to immigration respondents facing U.S. deportation proceedings in the Matter of M-A-M-. However, while these important legal protections have been extended to immigration courts, preexisting limitations of those standards have not been addressed. For example, as this standard places an increasing burden on immigration judges to utilize psychiatric expertise, there have been inconsistent legal interpretations by immigration judges regarding indicators of incompetence. If immigration respondents are eventually referred for a CST evaluation, these evaluations are inherently more complex due to the impact of several cultural variables, as well as additional legal responsibilities burdening respondents. Given the relative recency of this legal standard and the general need for additional research regarding forensic assessment with minoritized individuals, few guidelines exist to assist evaluators with CST evaluations in immigration proceedings. This article examines and summarizes the relevant psychological research and legal cases involving CST in immigration proceedings, as well as provides recommendations for evaluators conducting CST evaluations in the context of immigration proceedings. For example, the evaluator must consider several risk factors that could negatively impact the individual's mental health, as well as information about the individual's cultural, historical, familial, economic, social, and community background. All of this information must then be placed into the context of the prongs in the M-A-M- standard. What is the significance of this article for the general public? This article examines the impact of the Matter of M-A-M- (2011), a U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the due process right of competency to stand trial to immigration respondents facing U.S. deportation proceedings. Because of the recency of this standard, few guidelines exist to assist psychological evaluators with conducting competency to stand trial evaluations in immigration proceedings. This article provides recommendations for evaluators conducting such evaluations in an effort to uphold this due process right to immigration respondents in the United States.