Judge Monica Thompson Guidry

FY 2017 - 2022, Houston Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Monica Thompson Guidry to begin hearing cases inOctober 2018. Judge Guidry earned a Bachelor of Science in 1984 and a Master of Arts degree in1987 from Sam Houston State University. She earned a Juris Doctor in 1997 from South TexasCollege of Law. From 2009 to 2018, she was a deputy chief counsel with Immigration andCustoms Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Houston. From 2002to 2009, she was an assistant district counsel and an assistant chief counsel with ICE, DHS, firstin Los Angeles and later in Houston. From 2000 to 2002, she was an attorney and regulatoryspecialist with the Alfred Mann Institute at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.From 1998 to 2000, she was an attorney with the U.S. Department of Labor in Kansas City,Missouri. Judge Guidry is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Guidry were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Guidry decided 217 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 6, granted 3 other types of relief, and denied relief to 208. Converted to percentage terms, Guidry denied 95.9 percent and granted 4.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Guidry'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 Guidry's denial rate of 95.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Houston Immigration Court where Judge Guidry decided these cases denied asylum 90.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Guidry'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 Guidry, 41% 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 Guidry came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 41.9% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Guidry were: El Salvador (28.6%), Guatemala (19.4%), Mexico (5.5%), Venezuela (1.8%). 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%).