Judge Stuart A. Siegel

FY 2017 - 2022, Miami - Krome Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Stuart A. Siegel to begin hearing cases in April 2017. Judge Siegel earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1984 from the University of Michigan and a Juris Doctor in 1987 from the Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. From December 1997 to March 2017, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security in Pompano Beach, Fla. From 1994 to 1997 he was an associate attorney with Adorno & Zeder, PA, in West Palm Beach, Fla. From 1992 to 1994 he served as an administrative law judge for the New York City Department of Transportation. Prior to that role, he was a solo practitioner at the law offices of Stuart A. Siegel, Esq. Judge Siegel also served as assistant district attorney for Nassau County, N.Y., from 1987 to 1992. He was commissioned into the U.S. Army Reserves, Judge Advocate General in September 1994, and continues to serve. Judge Siegel is a member of the Florida Bar and the New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Siegel were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Siegel decided 310 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 43, granted 7 other types of relief, and denied relief to 260. Converted to percentage terms, Siegel denied 83.9 percent and granted 16.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Siegel'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 Siegel's denial rate of 83.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Miami - Krome Immigration Court where Judge Siegel decided these cases denied asylum 89.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Siegel'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 Siegel, 45.8% 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 Siegel came from Cuba. Individuals from this country made up 15.5% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Siegel were: Haiti (15.2%), Venezuela (14.2%), Guatemala (10.6%), Honduras (10.0%). 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%).