Judge Elizabeth L. Young

FY 2017 - 2022, San Francisco Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Elizabeth L. Young to begin hearing cases in September 2016. Judge Young earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1999 from Hendrix College and a Juris Doctor in 2004 from The George Washington University School of Law. From 2011 to September 2016, she served as an associate professor of law, and previously from 2008 through 2011 as an assistant professor of law, for the University of Arkansas School of Law. From 2007 through 2008, she served as a visiting professor at The George Washington University School of Law. From 2004 through 2007, she served as an attorney advisor for the San Francisco Immigration Court, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice. Judge Young is a member of the Arkansas Bar, the State Bar of California, and the Virginia State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Young were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Young decided 636 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 458, granted 17 other types of relief, and denied relief to 161. Converted to percentage terms, Young denied 25.3 percent and granted 74.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Young'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 Young's denial rate of 25.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the San Francisco Immigration Court where Judge Young decided these cases denied asylum 32.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Young'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 Young, 5.5% 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 Young came from India. Individuals from this country made up 23.9% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Young were: Mexico (17.9%), El Salvador (15.1%), Guatemala (14.3%), Honduras (7.9%). 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%).