Judge Walter A. Durling

FY 2017 - 2022, Baltimore Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Judge Durling was appointed as an Immigration Judge in February 1994. Prior to his appointment in York in April 1997, Judge Durling served as an Immigration Judge at the Immigration Court in Buffalo, New York. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1979 from the University of Florida, and a Juris Doctorate from Mercer University College of Law in 1982. Before his appointment as an Immigration Judge, he served as a staff attorney/advisor with the Board of Immigration Appeals in Falls Church, Virginia, from 1986 to 1994. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Judge Durling served four years active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps from 1970 to 1974. He subsequently served four years of active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. Judge Durling is a member of both the Georgia and South Carolina Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Durling were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Durling decided 130 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 35, granted 19 other types of relief, and denied relief to 76. Converted to percentage terms, Durling denied 58.5 percent and granted 41.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Durling'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 Durling's denial rate of 58.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Baltimore Immigration Court where Judge Durling decided these cases denied asylum 56.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Durling'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 Durling, 47.7% 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 Durling came from Haiti. Individuals from this country made up 16.2% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Durling were: Eritrea (15.4%), Mexico (8.5%), Honduras (6.9%), El Salvador (6.2%). 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%).