Judge William A. Cassidy

FY 2017 - 2022, Atlanta - Atd Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Judge Cassidy was appointed as an Immigration Judge in October 1993. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Kenyon College in 1975, and a Juris Doctorate from John Marshall/Cleveland State University in 1980. As an Immigration Judge, he has worked in both the New York and Atlanta Immigration Courts. Prior to joining the Executive Office for Immigration Review, he was in private practice with Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, in Cleveland, Ohio. From 1987 to 1992, Judge Cassidy served as both general attorney at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Cleveland, and as director of training at INS Headquarters in Washington, DC. From 1984 to 1986, he served as law director/prosecutor with the City of North Ridgeville, and from 1981 to 1984, he served as an assistant county prosecutor for the Civil/Criminal Division with Cuyahoga County, both in Ohio. Judge Cassidy is a member of the Ohio Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Cassidy were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Cassidy decided 111 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 1, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 110. Converted to percentage terms, Cassidy denied 99.1 percent and granted 0.9 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Cassidy's denial rate each fiscal year over this recent period. (Rates for years with less than 25 decisions are not shown.)

Nationwide Comparisons

Compared to Judge Cassidy's denial rate of 99.1 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Atlanta - Atd Immigration Court where Judge Cassidy decided these cases denied asylum 89.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Cassidy's asylum grant and denial rates are compared with other judges serving on the same court in this table. Note that when an Immigration Judge serves on more than one court during the same period, separate Immigration Judge reports are created for any Court in which the judge rendered at least 100 asylum decisions.

Why Do Denial Rates Vary Among Judges?

Although denial rates are shaped by each Judge's judicial philosophy, denial rates are also shaped by other factors, such as the types of cases on the Judge's docket, the detained status of immigrant respondents, current immigration policies, and other factors beyond an individual Judge's control. For example, TRAC has previously found that legal representation and the nationality of the asylum seeker are just two factors that appear to impact asylum decision outcomes.

The composition of cases may differ significantly between Immigration Courts in the country. Within a single Court when cases are randomly assigned to judges sitting on that Court, each Judge should have roughly a similar composition of cases given a sufficient number of asylum cases. Then variations in asylum decisions among Judges on the same Immigration Court would appear to reflect, at least in part, the judicial philosophy that the Judge brings to the bench. However, if judges within a Court are assigned to specialized dockets or hearing locations, then case compositions are likely to continue to differ and can contribute to differences in asylum denial rates.

Representation

When asylum seekers are not represented by an attorney, almost all of them (83%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Cassidy, 43.2% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 16.7% of asylum seekers are not represented.

Nationality

Asylum seekers are a diverse group. Over one hundred different nationalities had at least one hundred individuals claiming asylum decided during this period. As might be expected, immigration courts located in different parts of the country tend to have proportionately larger shares from some countries than from others. And, given the required legal grounds for a successful asylum claim, asylum seekers from some nations tend to be more successful than others.

The largest group of asylum seekers appearing before Judge Cassidy came from Haiti. Individuals from this country made up 19.8% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Cassidy were: El Salvador (13.5%), Honduras (9.9%), India (9.9%), Guatemala (9.0%). See Figure 4.

In the nation as a whole during this same period, major nationalities of asylum seekers, in descending order of frequency, were El Salvador (18.2%), Guatemala (16.0%), Honduras (14.6%), Mexico (10.5%), China (7.5%), India (4.5%), Cuba (2.5%), Venezuela (2.1%), Ecuador (2.1%), Nicaragua (1.9%), Haiti (1.7%), Cameroon (1.5%), Nepal (1.2%).