Judge Bruce A. Taylor

FY 2017 - 2022, Florence Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Judge Taylor was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 2006. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1972 from the University of Vermont, and a Juris Doctorate in 1974 from the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. From January 2004 to April 2006, Judge Taylor served as senior counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), in Washington, D.C. He served as president and chief counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families, Inc., in Fairfax, Virginia, from January 1995 to January 2004. From July 1989 to December 1994, Judge Taylor served as a senior trial attorney in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, DOJ, Washington, D.C. He was an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, from January to July 1989. Judge Taylor was vice president and general counsel for Citizens for Decency through Law, Inc., in Cleveland, Ohio, and Phoenix, Arizona, from 1979 to 1989. He was an attorney and associate in the law firm of Bertsch, Fludine, Millican & O'Malley, in Cleveland, Ohio, from 1978 to 1979. Judge Taylor was an assistant director of law from 1977 to 1978, and an assistant prosecutor from 1975 to 1977, both with the City of Cleveland in Cleveland, Ohio. He is a member of the Ohio, Arizona, New York, and Virginia Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Taylor were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Taylor decided 190 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 31, granted 7 other types of relief, and denied relief to 152. Converted to percentage terms, Taylor denied 80.0 percent and granted 20.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Taylor'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 Taylor's denial rate of 80.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Florence Immigration Court where Judge Taylor decided these cases denied asylum 79.3 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Taylor'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 Taylor, 68.9% 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 Taylor came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 35.8% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Taylor were: Honduras (14.7%), Guatemala (10.5%), Cuba (10.0%), El Salvador (6.3%). 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%).