Judge Thomas Bartleson

FY 2017 - 2022, New York Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed J. Thomas Bartleson as an immigration judge inJune 2020. Judge Bartleson earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1994 from the University ofWashington and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from the University of Montana School of Law. From2017 to 2020, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Districtof Montana, in Helena, Montana. From 2012 to 2017, he served in the Office of the State PublicDefender, Major Crimes Unit, in Helena, Montana. From 2002 to 2012, he served in the U.S.Army and deployed as a judge advocate twice: once as the chief of claims for Multi-NationalCorps-Iraq/III Corps; and once as a trial defense counsel at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. During thattime, from 2010 to 2011, he served as senior defense counsel at Fort Drum and the U.S. MilitaryAcademy. Judge Bartleson is a member of the State Bar of Montana.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Bartleson were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Bartleson decided 139 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 109, granted 3 other types of relief, and denied relief to 27. Converted to percentage terms, Bartleson denied 19.4 percent and granted 80.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Bartleson'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 Bartleson's denial rate of 19.4 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 Bartleson decided these cases denied asylum 34 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Bartleson'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 Bartleson, 0.7% 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 Bartleson came from . Individuals from this country made up . of his caseload. 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%).