Inside the Mind of an Immigration Judge: A Conversation with David Koelsch

If you’ve ever wondered how immigration judges actually read and use psychological evaluations, today’s episode is for you. Former immigration judge and USCIS asylum office supervisor David Koelsch shares what truly makes an evaluation credible, useful, and persuasive in immigration court. Drawing on decades of experience reviewing hundreds of evaluations, he explains what judges notice first, why structure and clarity matter more than length, and how common mistakes like legal conclusions, excessive detail, or advocacy language can quietly weaken a case.In this conversation, we explore:What signals to a judge that an evaluation will be helpfulWhy less factual detail is often more effectiveHow to stay in your expert role without drifting into legal analysisCommon pitfalls that raise credibility concernsWhen judges rely most heavily on psychological evaluationsWhy specialized training in immigration evaluations mattersIf you conduct immigration evaluations or are considering adding this work to your practice, this episode offers rare clarity from someone who sat on the other side of the bench.📘 Not Sure Where to Start as an Evaluator?Download our Free Guide to learn the essentials and see if this work is the right fit for you.👉 Get the free guideIf you are serious about doing immigration evaluations with care and precision, this work deserves more than guesswork. With the right training and guidance, you can write evaluations that honor trauma, stay within your expert role, and genuinely contribute to fair outcomes for families navigating the immigration system.👉 Learn More Here📲 Follow Us to Grow Your Expertise🔹 Instagram 🔹 Facebook🔹 LinkedIn 🌟 Join our private Facebook community for deeper discussions, peer support, and access to valuable training opportunities.👉 Click here to join the group