Judge Sandy K. Hom

FY 2018 - 2023, New York Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Judge Horn was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 1993. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Simpson College in 1971, and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Mississippi in 1973. Prior to working for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, he was a partner with Horn & Hsiung, Esquires from 1985 to 1993 in New York. He also served as chief legal counsel to the Presiding Bishop for the Episcopal Church for Refugee and Migration matters. From 1979 to 1985, Judge Horn worked as a senior trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in New York. He also worked as a senior attorney for District Counsel 37, Municipal Employees Legal Services, from 1977 to 1979 in New York. Judge Horn served as senior litigation attorney for the New York State Division of Human Rights from 1975 to 1977. He worked as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1973 to 1975. He is a member of both the Mississippi and New York Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Hom were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Hom decided 136 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 32, granted 3 other types of relief, and denied relief to 101. Converted to percentage terms, Hom denied 74.3 percent and granted 25.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Hom'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 Hom's denial rate of 74.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the New York Immigration Court where Judge Hom decided these cases denied asylum 34.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Hom'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 Hom, 2.2% 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 Hom came from China. Individuals from this country made up 22.1% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Hom were: El Salvador (16.9%), Bangladesh (8.1%), Honduras (8.1%), Guatemala (6.6%). 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%).