Judge D'Anna H. Freeman

FY 2017 - 2022, Pearsall Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Judge D’Anna H. Freeman to begin hearing cases in March 2016. Judge Freeman earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 1988 from Baylor University, a Master of Public Health in 1995 from the University of Texas Health Science Center, and Juris Doctor in 2004 from the University of Houston Law Center. From 2007 to February 2016, Judge Freeman served in various capacities for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including: as assistant chief counsel from 2013 to 2016, in Dallas; as senior attorney from 2010 through 2013, in Livingston, Texas; and as assistant chief counsel from 2007 through 2010, in Eloy, Ariz. From 2006 through 2007, she was a partner at Forrest & Harrison LLC, in Houston. From 2005 through 2006, she served as an attorney at Dunbar, Harden & Benson LLP, in Houston. From 2004 through 2005, she operated the Law Office of D’Anna Harrison, in Houston. Judge Freeman is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Freeman were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Freeman decided 178 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 61, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 113. Converted to percentage terms, Freeman denied 63.5 percent and granted 36.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Freeman'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 Freeman's denial rate of 63.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Pearsall Immigration Court where Judge Freeman decided these cases denied asylum 73.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Freeman'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 Freeman, 47.8% 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 Freeman came from Eritrea. Individuals from this country made up 37.6% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Freeman were: Mexico (10.7%), Honduras (9.0%), Cuba (6.7%), El Salvador (6.7%). 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%).