Judge Monica M. Little

FY 2017 - 2022, Los Angeles Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Judge Little was appointed as an immigration judge in November 2009. She received a bachelor of arts degree in 1972 and a master of public administration degree in 1974, both from the University of Washington, and a juris doctorate in 1980 from Lewis & Clark Law School. From 2003 to November 2009, Judge Little served with ICE, DHS, in Los Angeles in various capacities, most recently as deputy chief counsel. From 1995 to 2003, she served with the former INS in Los Angeles as an assistant chief counsel. From 1991 to 1995, she worked as an assistant regional counsel and assistant district counsel with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Seattle and Los Angeles. From 1990 to 1991, Judge Little was an assistant professor at West Virginia University. From 1988 to 1990, she was a staff attorney with the Metropolitan Service District in Portland, Ore. From 1988 to 1990, Judge Little served as an elected member of the Portland Community College Board of Directors in Portland. From 1987 to 1988, she was a hearings officer for the Oregon Public Utilities Commission in Salem, Ore. In 1987, she worked as a staff assistant to Portland's City Commissioner. From 1984 to 1987, Judge Little worked as an assistant district counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Portland. From 1981 to 1983, she worked as a staff attorney and judicial law clerk for Mulnomah County Circuit Court, Portland. From 1978 to 1981, Judge Little worked as a legal intern and law clerk for several private firms, the Federal Defender's Office, and HUD in Portland and Seattle. From 1976 to 1977, she was an assistant management analyst and budget analyst for several governmental agencies in Washington state and Oregon. Judge Little is amember of the Oregon State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Little were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Little decided 143 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 56, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 87. Converted to percentage terms, Little denied 60.8 percent and granted 39.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Little'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 Little's denial rate of 60.8 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Los Angeles Immigration Court where Judge Little decided these cases denied asylum 70.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Little'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 Little, 14% 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 Little came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 21.0% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Little were: China (18.9%), Mexico (18.2%), Guatemala (7.0%), Syria (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%).