On October 8, 2025, Fordham University hosted a webinar featuring Barry Rosenfeld, PhD, professor of psychology and adjunct professor of law at Fordham University. The study, titled , “The Role of Psychologists in Immigration Court: Ethical, Legal, and Practical Challenges,” by Fordham’s Center for Ethics Education, offered critical insights into one of the most complex intersections of psychology and law. Dr. Rosenfeld explored how forensic psychologists navigate immigration proceedings while facing significant ethical dilemmas. Immigration court operates as an administrative system where people facing deportation have no right to a court-appointed attorney, leaving most detained immigrants to navigate the process alone. Psychologists fill this gap by evaluating trauma, assessing hardship to U.S. citizen family members, and determining mental competency. Their expert testimony can dramatically improve case outcomes. However, the system reveals troubling inconsistencies, asylum approval rates vary wildly depending primarily on which judge hears the case rather than the merits of the situation itself.

Based on Dr. Rosenfeld’s talk, one of the most fundamental ethical concerns involves justice and professional competence standards. Immigrants who can afford both attorneys and expert forensic assessments achieve significantly better case outcomes. This creates systemic inequality based purely on socioeconomic status. The field faces a complex paradox: setting qualification standards too high limits access to essential services, yet allowing under-qualified practitioners causes harm to both detainees and the legal system. Confidentiality and informed consent present unique challenges in forensic contexts. Respondents must understand that evaluations aren’t confidential and information will be disclosed to courts. This distinction is particularly difficult for individuals from cultures unfamiliar with such concepts.

The APA called out the Office of Refugee Resettlement for sharing confidential psychotherapy notes of unaccompanied child immigrants with ICE. This practice undermines both privacy standards and treatment effectiveness. Perhaps the most delicate balance involves maintaining objectivity while working with profoundly vulnerable populations. When respondents disclose potentially damaging information, psychologists must include only what’s directly relevant without unnecessary elaboration. Cultural validity in assessments raises additional concerns, as many tests lack appropriate norms for diverse populations and culturally normative behaviors may be misinterpreted.

Dr. Rosenfeld emphasized that the field urgently needs expanded training programs focusing on cultural competence and interpreter collaboration. Courts don’t systematically connect unrepresented respondents to psychological resources despite evidence that evaluations significantly improve outcomes. A critical shortage of adequately trained professionals creates pressure for clinicians to take cases beyond their competence. The profession must advocate for policies ensuring all respondents have access to competent psychological evaluation regardless of financial means.

---

For more ‘Event Recaps’ and to keep updated with the latest posts, please consider subscribing to the The Ethics and Society Blog today!