The idea of a lawyer leaning too heavily on an Internet resource of dubious reliability is rife with comic potential. That is, unless your deportation status depends on the conclusion. Wired.com last week reported that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded a case (.pdf) to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for explanation as to why a denial of asylum based in part on evidence gathered from Wikipedia was not “clear error.”
Plenty of blame to go around
It should be noted, and indeed the court makes much of the fact (.pdf), that Wikipedia doesn’t pretend to be infallible; it is quite upfront about the limitations inherent in a wiki. In the court’s view, greater responsibility rests with BIA, which, as a gatekeeper, should know better than to apply such a deferential standard. The court observed that BIA “presumably was concerned” about the insufficiency of Wikipedia as a “source on which to rest the determination that an alien . . . is not entitled to asylum.” And yet, despite these concerns, BIA, without independently determining that petitioner Lamilem Badasa had failed to establish her identity, simply ruled that she was “not prejudiced by the [Immigration Judge’s] reliance on Wikipedia.”
I am shocked, shocked to find an overreliance on dubious authority!
It’s tempting to point a derisive finger at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and scoff, “what were they thinking?” when they consulted Wikipedia to determine whether a “laissez-passer” proffered by Badasa established her identity. But it’s not so surprising that someone sufficiently time-addled, resource-strapped, or lacking in Web savvy could take for granted Wikipedia’s inherent authority. Still, the phalanx of disclaimers plastered all over entries like the one at issue here should give one pause—especially a lawyer, and especially a government lawyer vetting evidence.
Law students and young lawyers, however savvy about information-age technology, should read this as a cautionary tale: “There but for the grace of law librarians, clinical professors, judicial clerks, and notes editors go I.” We are reminded, regularly and systematically, about our professional obligations and the perils of cutting corners. Even Lexis and Westlaw, we’re admonished, are not infallible; failure to properly verify a source can lead to embarrassment for you, your judge, or your journal.
But what about those operating in the “real” world? (Emphasis added for irony, since the notion of government agencies relying, to an asylum seeker’s detriment, on something clearly labeled as lacking in authority is a bit through the looking glass.) For those less familiar with how the series of tubes otherwise known as the Internet(s) works, here’s a tip: the prefix or root “wiki” should always raise a red flag. That said, Wikipedia is a perfectly fine starting point, a trail head that leads to suitably authoritative sources. Where justice suffers, and the government and the profession end up with egg on their faces, is when the inquiry ends at the first sign of a seemingly dispositive answer. At a minimum, it might be worthwhile for agencies and bar associations to incorporate more detailed guidelines into a CLE curriculum. Otherwise, it may be only a matter of time before we hear about a case being remanded for further proceedings not involving a Magic 8-Ball™.
Comments
Post new comment