Judge Adam Opaciuch

FY 2018 - 2023, Miami - Krome Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Judge Opaciuch was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 1998. Prior to his appointment at the Miami Immigration Court in October 2005, Judge Opaciuch served as an Immigration Judge at the New York Immigration Court from April 1998 to October 2005. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1980 from Manhattan College, and a Juris Doctorate in 1983 from the California Western School of Law. Judge Opaciuch served as an assistant district counsel for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (NS) in New York from 1994 to 1998. He worked as an attorney in private practice with Munjack and Opaciuch in White Plains, New York, from 1991 to 1994. From 1990 to 1991, Judge Opaciuch worked as a trial attorney for INS in New York, and from 1981 to 1988 he worked as an immigration inspector for INS at John F. Kennedy Airport. Judge Opaciuch worked as an attorney in a general practice law firm in Manhattan from 1988 to 1991. He is a member of the New York Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Opaciuch were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Opaciuch decided 117 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 5, granted 8 other types of relief, and denied relief to 104. Converted to percentage terms, Opaciuch denied 88.9 percent and granted 11.1 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Opaciuch'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 Opaciuch's denial rate of 88.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Miami - Krome Immigration Court where Judge Opaciuch decided these cases denied asylum 89.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Opaciuch'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 Opaciuch, 29.9% 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 Opaciuch came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 17.9% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Opaciuch were: Honduras (13.7%), Haiti (12.8%), Cuba (12.0%), Mexico (6.8%). 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%).