Judge Ian D. Midgley

FY 2017 - 2022, Jena Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Attorney General William Barr appointed Ian D. Midgley to begin hearing cases in October2019. Judge Midgley earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from Youngstown State University and aJuris Doctor in 1998 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. From 2014 to 2019,he served as a supervisory administrative law judge with the Office of Medicare Hearings andAppeals, Department of Health and Human Services, in Miami. From 2008 to 2014, he served asan assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and CustomsEnforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Orlando, Florida. From 2006 to 2008, heserved as an active duty judge advocate for the U.S. Navy, in Yokosuka, Japan. From 2001 to2006, he served as an active duty judge advocate with the U.S. Army, in Kitzingen, Germany,and at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. Since 2009, he has served as a judge advocate with theU.S. Navy Reserve. Judge Midgley is a member of the Florida Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Midgley were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Midgley decided 106 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 12, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 93. Converted to percentage terms, Midgley denied 87.7 percent and granted 12.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Midgley'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 Midgley's denial rate of 87.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Jena Immigration Court where Judge Midgley decided these cases denied asylum 90.6 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Midgley'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 Midgley, 48.1% 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 Midgley came from Cuba. Individuals from this country made up 41.5% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Midgley were: Nicaragua (10.4%), Honduras (6.6%), Cameroon (4.7%), Guatemala (3.8%). 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%).