Judge Robert Gundlach

FY 2017 - 2022, New York Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Robert J. Gundlach as an immigration judge inMarch 2020. Judge Gundlach earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from the University of Michiganand a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Wayne State University Law School. From 2016 to 2020, heserved as an assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal LegalAdvisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in NewYork. From 2011 to 2016, he served as an attorney advisor for the Board of ImmigrationAppeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Department of Justice (DOJ). From2009 to 2011, he served as a judicial law clerk and attorney advisor for the New York CityImmigration Court, EOIR, DOJ, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s HonorsProgram. Judge Gundlach is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Gundlach were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Gundlach decided 155 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 60, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 95. Converted to percentage terms, Gundlach denied 61.3 percent and granted 38.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Gundlach'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 Gundlach's denial rate of 61.3 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 Gundlach decided these cases denied asylum 34 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Gundlach'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 Gundlach, 10.3% 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 Gundlach 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%).