Judge James K. Grim

FY 2017 - 2022, Orlando Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Judge Grim was appointed as an immigration judge in April 2009. He received a bachelor of arts degree in 1988 from the University of Nebraska at Omaha and a juris doctorate in 1992 from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. From October 2008 to April 2009, Judge Grim served as deputy chief counsel for ICE, DHS, in Orlando. From October 2005 to October 2008, he served as an attorney for Customs and Border Protection, DHS, in Tampa. From March 2003 to October 2005, Judge Grim served as an assistant chief counsel for ICE in Bradenton. From October 1995 to March 2003, he served as an assistant district counsel for the former INS in Bradenton and Miami. From October 1993 to October 1995, Judge Grim was in private practice in Fremont, Neb. From February to October 1993, he worked as a staff attorney at Legal Services of Southeast Nebraska. Judge Grim is a member of the Nebraska Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Grim were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Grim decided 606 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 103, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 501. Converted to percentage terms, Grim denied 82.7 percent and granted 17.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Grim'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 Grim's denial rate of 82.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Orlando Immigration Court where Judge Grim decided these cases denied asylum 82.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Grim'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 Grim, 17.2% 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 Grim came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 27.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Grim were: Guatemala (20.1%), El Salvador (9.7%), Venezuela (8.4%), Haiti (7.4%). 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%).