Judge Jose Rivera

FY 2017 - 2022, Miami Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Jose A. Rivera-Ortiz as an immigration judge inJune 2020. Judge Rivera-Ortiz earned a Bachelor of Science in 1995 from Purdue UniversityFort Wayne and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto RicoSchool of Law. From 2017 to 2020, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of ChiefCounsel (OCC), Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and CustomsEnforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Miami, where he co-led theHomeland Security Investigations Embedded Attorneys Program. From 2007 to 2017, he servedas an assistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. From 2001 to2007 he served as an attorney advisor with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice,in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2001, he served as an assistant to the deputy secretaryof the Puerto Rico Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Judge Rivera-Ortiz is amember of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Rivera were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Rivera decided 279 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 53, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 224. Converted to percentage terms, Rivera denied 80.3 percent and granted 19.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Rivera'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 Rivera's denial rate of 80.3 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 Rivera decided these cases denied asylum 86.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Rivera'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 Rivera, 11.5% 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 Rivera came from Venezuela. Individuals from this country made up 17.2% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Rivera were: Brazil (16.8%), Nicaragua (13.6%), Guatemala (11.8%), Honduras (11.8%). 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%).