Judge Roxanne C. Hladylowycz

FY 2017 - 2022, Arlington Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Judge Hladylowycz was appointed as an Immigration Judge in June 1998. Prior to her appointment to the Headquarters Immigration Court in July 2005, Judge Hladylowycz served as an Immigration Judge at the Immigration Court in New York from June 1998 to July 2005. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Rutgers University in 1979, a Juris Doctorate from Temple University School of Law in 1985, and a Bachelor of Laws degree from McGeorge School of Law and University of Salzburg in 1989. Judge Hladylowycz served as an assistant district counsel for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in Newark, New Jersey, from 1995 to 1998. She worked as a managing attorney for the International Institute of New Jersey in Jersey City, New Jersey, from 1989 to 1995. Judge Hladylowycz is a member of both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Hladylowycz were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Hladylowycz decided 263 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 99, granted 5 other types of relief, and denied relief to 159. Converted to percentage terms, Hladylowycz denied 60.5 percent and granted 39.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Hladylowycz'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 Hladylowycz's denial rate of 60.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court where Judge Hladylowycz decided these cases denied asylum 57.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Hladylowycz'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 Hladylowycz, 22.8% 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 Hladylowycz came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 39.5% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Hladylowycz were: Honduras (20.2%), Guatemala (9.1%), Mexico (3.0%), Ethiopia (2.7%). 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%).