Judge Amy T. Lee

FY 2017 - 2022, Charlotte Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Lee in April 2013. Judge Lee received a bachelor of arts degree in 1992 from Stanford University; a juris doctorate in 1995 from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law; and a master of public administration in 2001 from California State University, East Bay. From February 2008 to April 2013, she was an attorney with Fallon, Bixby, Cheng & Lee, Inc. in San Francisco. From January 2006 to February 2008, Judge Lee was an attorney with the Law Offices of David M. Lederman in Antioch, Calif. From January 2005 to December 2005, she was a solo practitioner in Oakland, Calif. From January 2001 to January 2005, Judge Lee served as senior corporate counsel for PeopleSoft, Inc. From September 1995 to December 2000, she served as an assistant district counsel for the Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, in San Francisco. Judge Lee is a member of the State Bar of California.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Lee were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Lee decided 269 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 16, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 252. Converted to percentage terms, Lee denied 93.7 percent and granted 6.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Lee'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 Lee's denial rate of 93.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Charlotte Immigration Court where Judge Lee decided these cases denied asylum 89.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Lee'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 Lee, 16.7% 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 Lee came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 24.9% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Lee were: El Salvador (24.2%), Guatemala (22.7%), Mexico (17.5%), Brazil (3.3%). 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%).