Judge Joseph C. Scott

FY 2017 - 2022, Philadelphia Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Joseph C. Scott as an immigration judge in June2020. Judge Scott earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Rutgers College and a Juris Doctor in2003 from Rutgers School of Law – Newark. From 2012 to 2020, he served as an assistant chiefcounsel, Office of Chief Counsel (OCC), Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA),Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), inPhiladelphia. From 2009 to 2012, he served as an associate legal advisor, National Security LawSection, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in the District of Columbia. From 2007 to 2009, he served as anassistant chief counsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Los Angeles. From 2005 to 2006, he was anassociate attorney with Farmer Case and Fedor, in San Diego. Judge Scott is a member of theState Bar of California.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Scott were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Scott decided 247 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 89, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 154. Converted to percentage terms, Scott denied 62.3 percent and granted 37.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Scott'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 Scott's denial rate of 62.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Philadelphia Immigration Court where Judge Scott decided these cases denied asylum 54.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Scott'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 Scott, 5.7% 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 Scott came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 23.5% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Scott were: Honduras (13.4%), Brazil (8.1%), Nigeria (6.5%), Belarus (6.1%). 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%).