Judge Anne Kristina Perry

FY 2017 - 2022, Imperial Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Anne Kristina Perry to begin hearing cases in October2018. Judge Perry earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1978 from the University of California, LosAngeles, and a Juris Doctor in 1981 from the Loyola Law School. From 1991 to 2018, sheserved as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District ofCalifornia in San Diego. From 2007 to 2018, she also served as a volunteer judge pro temporefor the San Diego Superior Court. From 1987 to 1991, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney atthe U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada. From 1983 to 1987, she was a deputyattorney general with the State of Nevada. From 1982 to 1983, she was a deputy district attorneyin Clark County, Nevada. Judge Perry is a member of the Nevada State Bar and the State Bar ofCalifornia.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Perry were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Perry decided 240 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 57, granted 19 other types of relief, and denied relief to 164. Converted to percentage terms, Perry denied 68.3 percent and granted 31.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Perry'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 Perry's denial rate of 68.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Imperial Immigration Court where Judge Perry decided these cases denied asylum 54 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Perry'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 Perry, 23.8% 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 Perry came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 17.1% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Perry were: Honduras (12.5%), El Salvador (10.8%), Guatemala (9.6%), Eritrea (8.3%). 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%).