Judge Lisa Ann J. de Cardona

FY 2017 - 2022, Bloomington Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Lisa Ann J. de Cardona to begin hearing cases in August 2016. Judge de Cardona earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1986 from St. Joseph’s University and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from the Widener University School of Law. From 2013 to May 2016, she served as associate program director for the Office of Legal Access Programs, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Department of Justice (DOJ). From 2012 through 2013, and previously from 2002 through 2007 and 1991 through 1998, she served as an attorney advisor for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), EOIR, DOJ. From 2007 through 2011, she served as a supervisory attorney advisor for the BIA. From 1990 through 1991, she served as a law clerk for the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, EOIR, DOJ, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge de Cardona is a member of the New Jersey State and Pennsylvania Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Cardona were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Cardona decided 284 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 64, granted 3 other types of relief, and denied relief to 217. Converted to percentage terms, Cardona denied 76.4 percent and granted 23.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Cardona'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 Cardona's denial rate of 76.4 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Bloomington Immigration Court where Judge Cardona decided these cases denied asylum 69.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Cardona'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 Cardona, 45.1% 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 Cardona came from Cuba. Individuals from this country made up 33.8% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Cardona were: Honduras (13.4%), Cameroon (13.0%), India (8.5%), El Salvador (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%).