Judge Elizabeth H. McGrail

FY 2017 - 2022, Aurora Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge McGrail in April 2013. Judge McGrail received a bachelor of arts degree in 1985 from Vanderbilt University and a juris doctorate in 1989 from the College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law. From 2008 to April 2013, she served as legal director at Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition (CAIR Coalition) in Washington, D.C. From 2007 to 2008, Judge McGrail served as an of counsel for the Law Office of Richard S. Bromberg in Washington, D.C. From 2005 to 2007, she served as the detention project director and legal consultant for CAIR Coalition. From 1994 to 2005, Judge McGrail was a solo practitioner in Washington, D.C. From 1991 to 1994, she was an associate at Wasserman, Mancini & Chang in Washington, D.C. From 1989 to 1990, Judge McGrail was an associate at Brown & Wood in New York. Judge McGrail is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge McGrail were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge McGrail decided 358 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 89, granted 26 other types of relief, and denied relief to 243. Converted to percentage terms, McGrail denied 67.9 percent and granted 32.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge McGrail'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 McGrail's denial rate of 67.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Aurora Immigration Court where Judge McGrail decided these cases denied asylum 64 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge McGrail'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 McGrail, 50.8% 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 McGrail came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 34.9% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge McGrail were: Honduras (12.3%), El Salvador (7.5%), Cameroon (6.1%), Guatemala (5.6%). 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%).