Judge Justin W. Howard

FY 2017 - 2022, Kansas City Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Justin W. Howard to begin hearing cases in June 2016. Judge Howard earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1998 from Kansas State University and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from American University, Washington College of Law. From 2008 to May 2016, Judge Howard served as an assistant chief counsel for the Office of the Chief Counsel, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security. From 2006 through 2008, Judge Howard served as an associate attorney for Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, in Kansas City. From 2002 through 2005, Judge Howard served as an assistant state’s attorney for the Miami-Dade Office of the State Attorney, in Miami. Judge Howard is a member of the Florida, Kansas and Missouri Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Howard were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Howard decided 966 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 174, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 788. Converted to percentage terms, Howard denied 81.6 percent and granted 18.4 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Howard'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 Howard's denial rate of 81.6 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Kansas City Immigration Court where Judge Howard decided these cases denied asylum 85.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Howard'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 Howard, 24% 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 Howard came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 34.0% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Howard were: El Salvador (24.6%), Honduras (23.2%), Mexico (11.1%), Ukraine (1.1%). 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%).