Judge Laura N. Pierro

FY 2017 - 2022, New York Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William Barr appointed Laura N. Pierro to begin hearing cases in October2019. Judge Pierro earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1994 from the University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill, and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Wake Forest University School of Law. In 2018,she served as the deputy executive assistant prosecutor in charge of litigation for the OceanCounty Prosecutor’s Office (OCPO), in Toms River, New Jersey. From 2013 to 2018, she servedas the chief trial attorney for OCPO, in Toms River, New Jersey. From 2012 to 2013, she servedas a senior assistant prosecutor and trial team leader for the Presiding Criminal Judge of OCPO.From 2007 to 2013, she was the director of the Special Victims’ Unit at OCPO. From 1999 to2007, she served OCPO as an assistant prosecutor in the Grand Jury, Juvenile and Trial Sections.From 1997 to 1998, she served as a law clerk to three criminal judges of the Superior Court ofNew Jersey, Monmouth Vicinage and the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office. Judge Pierro isa member of the District of Columbia Bar and New Jersey State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Pierro were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Pierro decided 136 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 53, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 82. Converted to percentage terms, Pierro denied 60.3 percent and granted 39.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Pierro'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 Pierro's denial rate of 60.3 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 Pierro decided these cases denied asylum 34 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Pierro'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 Pierro, 1.5% 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 Pierro came from China. Individuals from this country made up 35.6% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Pierro were: El Salvador (20.0%), India (8.1%), Guatemala (6.7%), Ecuador (5.2%). 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%).