Judge Sarah M. Ellison

FY 2017 - 2022, Chicago Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Sarah M. Ellison to begin hearing cases inNovember 2018. Judge Ellison earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2006 from the University of MaryWashington and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from St. Mary’s University School of Law. From 2017 to2018, she served as an assistant chief counsel with the Office of the Chief Counsel, Immigrationand Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Pearsall, Texas. From 2014 to2017, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SouthernDistrict of Texas, Department of Justice, in Laredo, Texas. From 2010 to 2014, she served as anassistant district attorney with the District Attorney’s Office, Bexar County, in San Antonio,Texas. From 2009 to 2010, she was an associate attorney with the Law Office of Steven C.Benke, in San Antonio. Judge Ellison is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Ellison were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Ellison decided 167 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 15, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 151. Converted to percentage terms, Ellison denied 90.4 percent and granted 9.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Ellison'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 Ellison's denial rate of 90.4 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Chicago Immigration Court where Judge Ellison decided these cases denied asylum 49.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Ellison'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 Ellison, 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 Ellison came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 37.1% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Ellison were: Honduras (24.0%), Guatemala (19.2%), El Salvador (10.2%), Venezuela (5.4%). 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%).