Judge Matthew J. D'Angelo

FY 2018 - 2023, Boston Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Judge D'Angelo was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 2003. Prior to his appointment as an Immigration Judge in Boston, he served as an Immigration Judge in Hartford, Connecticut from April 2003 to March 2006. Judge D'Angelo received an undergraduate degree in 1984 from Stonehill College, and a Juris Doctorate in 1988 from New England School of Law in Boston. From 1988 until his appointment in April 2003, Judge D'Angelo served as an assistant district counsel in charge of the detention division at the Department of Homeland Security (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) in Boston. During this time, from 2000 until April 2003, he also served as a special assistant U.S. attorney in the criminal division in the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office. Judge D'Angelo is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge D'Angelo were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge D'Angelo decided 160 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 76, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 84. Converted to percentage terms, D'Angelo denied 52.5 percent and granted 47.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge D'Angelo'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 D'Angelo's denial rate of 52.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Boston Immigration Court where Judge D'Angelo decided these cases denied asylum 49.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge D'Angelo'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 (80%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge D'Angelo, 9.4% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 15.7% 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 D'Angelo came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 34.4% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge D'Angelo were: Guatemala (16.9%), Honduras (11.3%), Dominican Republic (5.0%), Ecuador (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 (16.6%), Guatemala (15.1%), Honduras (13.8%), Mexico (9.2%), China (6.8%), India (5.1%), Venezuela (3.2%), Ecuador (3.1%), Cuba (2.4%), Nicaragua (2.3%), Brazil (2.0%), Colombia (1.4%), Cameroon (1.4%).