Judge David M. Jones

FY 2017 - 2022, Baltimore Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker appointed David M. Jones to beginsupervisory immigration court duties and hearing cases in March 2019. He will oversee theBaltimore Immigration Court. Judge Jones received a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 from BrighamYoung University and a Juris Doctor in 1992 the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham YoungUniversity. He also received a Masters of Law in Military Law (criminal) in 2003 from TheJudge Advocate General’s School of the U.S. Army. Prior to his appointment, Judge Jonesserved 26 years on active duty as a judge advocate in the U.S. Marine Corps, where he spentalmost his entire career litigating and adjudicating criminal cases. Upon his retirement, JudgeJones was serving as an appellate judge on the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.Prior to that, he served 11 years as a criminal trial judge, and an additional 11 years in a varietyof prosecution and defense billets. Judge Jones is a member of the Utah State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Jones were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Jones decided 180 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 52, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 127. Converted to percentage terms, Jones denied 70.6 percent and granted 29.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Jones'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 Jones's denial rate of 70.6 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 Jones decided these cases denied asylum 56.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Jones'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 Jones, 15% 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 Jones came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 32.2% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Jones were: El Salvador (28.9%), Honduras (16.7%), Haiti (7.8%), Congo (3.3%). 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%).