Judge Jeffrey L. Menkin

FY 2017 - 2022, New York Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker appointed Jeffrey L. Menkin to begin hearingcases in March 2019. Judge Menkin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1981from Brandeis Universityand a Juris Doctor in 1984 from Rutgers University School of Law, Camden. From 1985 to1987, he served as a deputy attorney general for the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice inTrenton, New Jersey. From 1987 to 1991, he was an associate for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer inWoodbridge, New Jersey. From 1991 to 1996, he served as a trial attorney for the Fraud Section,Criminal Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), in Washington D.C. From 2006 to 2018, heserved as a senior counsel for national security for the Office of Immigration Litigation, CivilDivision, DOJ, in Washington D.C. Judge Menkin is a member of the District of Columbia Barand the New Jersey State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Menkin were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Menkin decided 212 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 10, granted 25 other types of relief, and denied relief to 177. Converted to percentage terms, Menkin denied 83.5 percent and granted 16.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Menkin'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 Menkin's denial rate of 83.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the New York Immigration Court where Judge Menkin decided these cases denied asylum 34 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Menkin'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 Menkin, 9.4% 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 Menkin came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 33.8% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Menkin were: Guatemala (29.5%), El Salvador (27.3%), Russia (4.3%), Venezuela (2.2%). 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%).