Judge David W. Crosland

FY 2018 - 2023, Baltimore Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Judge Crosland was appointed as an ACIJ in June 2000. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1959 from Auburn University and a Juris Doctorate in 1966 from the University of Alabama. Judge Crosland served as an Immigration Judge at the Immigration Court in Otay Mesa, California, from May 1997 to June 2000. From 1981 to 1987, Judge Crosland practiced immigration law in Washington, DC, as a partner with the law firms of Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver and Crosland, Strand, Freeman & Mayock. He served as general counsel and acting commissioner for the INS from 1977 to 1981. Judge Crosland served as an adjunct professor of law at George Washington School of Law in 1997 and the District of Columbia School of Law from 1990 to 1997. He is a member of the Alabama, Georgia, and District of Columbia Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Crosland were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Crosland decided 1204 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 492, granted 14 other types of relief, and denied relief to 698. Converted to percentage terms, Crosland denied 58.0 percent and granted 42.1 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Crosland'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 Crosland's denial rate of 58.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Baltimore Immigration Court where Judge Crosland decided these cases denied asylum 51.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Crosland'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 Crosland, 8.7% 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 Crosland came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 49.4% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Crosland were: Honduras (14.5%), Guatemala (12.5%), Cameroon (6.4%), Ethiopia (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%).