Judge Elliot Kaplan

FY 2017 - 2022, Arlington Immigration Court

Published Oct 26, 2022

Elliot M. Kaplan was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisoryimmigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Kaplan earned hisBachelor of Arts in 1998 from Antioch University, a Master of Business Administration in 1982from Whittier College, and a Juris Doctor in 1982 from Whittier Law School. From 2019 to2020, he was Of Counsel to Kutak Rock LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri. From 2004 to 2019, hewas in private practice, in Kansas City. From 1995 to 2003, he was a Partner and Founder ofDaniels & Kaplan PC, in Detroit and Kansas City. From 1991 to 1994, he was Of Counsel toBerman, DeLeve, Kuchan & Chapman LLC, in Kansas City. From 1990 to 1991, he was OfCounsel to DeWitt, Zeldin & Bigus PC, in Kansas City. From 1985 to 1990, he was Of Counselto Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Cornfeld & Jenkins, in Kansas City. From 1983 to 1985, hewas Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Air One Inc., in St. Louis. JudgeKaplan is a member of the Missouri Bar.Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Kaplan were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Kaplan decided 139 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 99, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 38. Converted to percentage terms, Kaplan denied 27.3 percent and granted 72.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Kaplan'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 Kaplan's denial rate of 27.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court where Judge Kaplan decided these cases denied asylum 57.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Kaplan'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 Kaplan, 2.2% 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 Kaplan came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 46.0% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Kaplan were: Honduras (23.7%), Guatemala (6.5%), Ethiopia (5.8%), Cameroon (2.9%). 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%).