Judge Daniel H. Malvin

FY 2017 - 2022, Los Angeles Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Daniel H. Malvin to begin hearing cases inNovember 2018. Judge Malvin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1989 from California StateUniversity, Northridge, and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from Loyola Law School. From 2016 to 2018,he served as a supervisory administrative law judge with the Office of Medicare Hearings andAppeals, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in Kansas City, Missouri. From 2006to 2016, he served as an assistant chief counsel with the Office of the Chief Counsel,Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in El Centro, andLos Angeles, California. During that time, from 2012 to 2015, he served as a special assistantU.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in LosAngeles. From 2004 to 2006, he was an attorney in private practice, in Los Angeles. From 2003to 2004, he was an attorney with the Law Offices of Michael J. Gurfinkle, in Glendale,California. From 1996 to 2003, he was an attorney with the Law Offices of John C. Nelson, inNewport Beach, California. From 1993 to 1996, he was an attorney in private practice, inPasadena, California. Judge Malvin is a member of the State Bar of California.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Malvin were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Malvin decided 217 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 58, granted 6 other types of relief, and denied relief to 153. Converted to percentage terms, Malvin denied 70.5 percent and granted 29.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Malvin'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 Malvin's denial rate of 70.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Los Angeles Immigration Court where Judge Malvin decided these cases denied asylum 70.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Malvin'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 Malvin, 8.3% 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 Malvin came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 26.3% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Malvin were: Guatemala (21.7%), Mexico (14.3%), Honduras (10.1%), China (8.3%). 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%).