Judge Ira E. Bank

FY 2018 - 2023, Los Angeles Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Judge Bank was appointed as an Immigration Judge in June 1997. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1971 from Arizona State University, and a Juris Doctorate in 1976 from the University of West Los Angeles School of Law. Prior to joining the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Judge Bank was in private practice in Los Angeles and Marina Del Rey, California. He is a member of the California Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Bank were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Bank decided 328 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 71, granted 11 other types of relief, and denied relief to 246. Converted to percentage terms, Bank denied 75.0 percent and granted 25.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Bank'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 Bank's denial rate of 75.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Los Angeles Immigration Court where Judge Bank decided these cases denied asylum 66.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Bank'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 Bank, 15.2% 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 Bank came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 32.3% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Bank were: El Salvador (21.0%), Mexico (14.6%), Honduras (9.5%), China (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 (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%).