Judge Stephanie E. Gorman
FY 2017 - 2022, Houston Immigration Court
Published Oct 26, 2022
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Stephanie E. Gorman to begin hearing cases in February 2017. Judge Gorman earned a Bachelor of Science degree in 1996 from California State University Sacramento, a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, and a Master of Laws degree in 2005 from the University of San Diego School of Law. From 2014 to January 2017, she served as an attorney and legal instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., for the Office of the Chief Counsel, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS). From 2008 through 2014, she served as an assistant chief counsel for the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS. From 2009 through 2012, she also served as a special assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Florida, Department of Justice (DOJ), in Orlando, Fla. From 2007 through 2008, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable M. James Lorenz, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, in San Diego. From March 2007 to September 2007, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Roger T. Benitez, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, in San Diego. From 2006 through 2007, she served as an assistant state attorney for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in Sarasota, Fla. From 2003 through 2006, she served in various capacities on the faculty of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, including as visiting assistant professor of law and senior legal writing instructor and adjunct professor. From 2002 through 2004, she served as an associate attorney for the Law Office of Matthew P. Rocco, in Carlsbad, Ca. Judge Gorman is a member of the State Bar of California and the Florida Bar.
Deciding Asylum Cases
Detailed data on decisions by Judge Gorman were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Gorman decided 548 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 46, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 500. Converted to percentage terms, Gorman denied 91.2 percent and granted 8.8 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).
Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Gorman'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 Gorman's denial rate of 91.2 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Houston Immigration Court where Judge Gorman decided these cases denied asylum 90.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.
Judge Gorman'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 Gorman, 27% 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 Gorman came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 41.2% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Gorman were: Honduras (33.6%), Guatemala (7.5%), Mexico (6.6%), Syria (1.5%). 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%).
