Judge Brendan C. Curran

FY 2017 - 2022, Chicago Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Brendan Curran as an Immigration Judge inOctober 2020. Judge Curran earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from Marquette University and aJuris Doctor in 1994 from DePaul University College of Law. From 2007 to 2020, he served asan assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor,Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From1999 to 2007, he served as an assistant state attorney for the Cook County State’s Attorney’sOffice, in Chicago. From 1994 to 1999, he served as an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s(JAG) Corps of the U.S. Navy. He was stationed at Naval Training Center Great Lakes, inIllinois, and at sea aboard USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74). He remains a JAG in the reservecomponent of the U.S. Navy, having mobilized and deployed overseas in support of OperationNoble Eagle in 2013. Judge Curran is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Curran were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Curran decided 137 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 58, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 75. Converted to percentage terms, Curran denied 54.7 percent and granted 45.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Curran'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 Curran's denial rate of 54.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Chicago Immigration Court where Judge Curran decided these cases denied asylum 49.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Curran'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 Curran, 1.5% 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 Curran came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 13.1% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Curran were: Guatemala (13.1%), Honduras (12.4%), Mexico (11.7%), China (8.8%). 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%).