Judge Irene M. Recio

FY 2017 - 2022, Miami Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William Barr appointed Irene M. Recio to begin hearing cases in October2019. Judge Recio earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1989 from the University of Miami, a Master ofInternational Business Management in 1991 from University of Miami School of InternationalStudies, and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from University of Miami School of Law. From 2014 to2019, she served as branch chief at the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), U.S. Citizenshipand Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS). From 2013 to2014, she served as an adjudications officer and supervisor at the Immigrant Investor ProgramOffice, USCIS, DHS, in the District of Columbia. From 2012 to 2013, she served as anadjudications officer at AAO, USCIS, DHS, in the District of Columbia. From 2010 to 2011, sheserved as a legal services manager and general counsel for BPSOS Inc., in Falls Church,Virginia. From 2005 to 2010, she worked as an associate attorney and of counsel at Reed SmithLLP., in the District of Columbia. From 2003 to 2004, she worked as an associate attorney atSteptoe & Johnson LLP., in the District of Columbia. From 1999 to 2003, she worked as anattorney with Baker & McKenzie, in the District of Columbia. From 1997 to 1999, she workedas an attorney with Magda Montiel Davis P.A., in Miami and the District of Columbia.Judge Recio is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and Florida Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Recio were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Recio decided 282 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 42, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 236. Converted to percentage terms, Recio denied 83.7 percent and granted 16.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Recio'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 Recio's denial rate of 83.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Miami Immigration Court where Judge Recio decided these cases denied asylum 86.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Recio'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 Recio, 14.2% 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 Recio came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 42.2% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Recio were: Honduras (25.2%), Venezuela (9.2%), El Salvador (6.0%), Nicaragua (3.9%). 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%).