Judge Michael H. Bennett

FY 2017 - 2022, Portland Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Judge Bennett was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 1989. Prior to his assignment in Portland, Judge Bennett served as an Immigration Judge at the Imperial, California, Immigration Court. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Eastern Oregon State College in 1979, and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Oregon in 1982. From 1988 to 1989, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service as a general attorney in El Centro, California. Judge Bennett was employed by the American Samoa Government in Pago Pago from 1986 to 1988, as an assistant public defender, and from 1984 to 1986, as an assistant attorney general. From March 1986 to June 1986, he served as an attorney with Alailima & Associates, also in Pago Pago. Judge Bennett was in private practice in Oregon before going to American Samoa. He is a member of the Oregon Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Bennett were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Bennett decided 106 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 59, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 45. Converted to percentage terms, Bennett denied 42.5 percent and granted 57.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Bennett'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 Bennett's denial rate of 42.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Portland Immigration Court where Judge Bennett decided these cases denied asylum 68.3 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Bennett'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 Bennett, 18.9% 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 Bennett came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 50.9% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Bennett were: Guatemala (17.9%), El Salvador (11.3%), Honduras (4.7%), Venezuela (3.8%). 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%).