Judge David C. Koelsch

FY 2017 - 2022, Baltimore Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed David C. Koelsch to begin hearing cases in August2018. Judge Koelsch earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1988 from Michigan State Universityand a Juris Doctor in 1994from Catholic University. From 2017 to 2018, he was a supervisoryasylum officer with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department ofHomeland Security (DHS), in Arlington, Va. From 2015 to 2017, he was an appeals officer withthe Administrative Appeals Office, USCIS, DHS. From 2002 to 2015, he was a professor anddirector of the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. From2000 to 2005, he was legal director of Freedom House. From 1998 to 2000, he was associateattorney with Dykema PLLC. From 1996 to 1998, he was associate attorney with Hopkins &Sutter. From 1995 to 1996, he was a law clerk for the Alaska Superior Court. He is a member ofthe Michigan State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Koelsch were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Koelsch decided 1417 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 820, granted 10 other types of relief, and denied relief to 587. Converted to percentage terms, Koelsch denied 41.4 percent and granted 58.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Koelsch'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 Koelsch's denial rate of 41.4 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Baltimore Immigration Court where Judge Koelsch decided these cases denied asylum 56.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Koelsch'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 Koelsch, 6.1% 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 Koelsch came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 48.0% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Koelsch were: Honduras (17.2%), Guatemala (13.7%), Cameroon (7.5%), Ethiopia (3.1%). 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%).