Judge Lolita M. Lukose

FY 2018 - 2023, Arlington Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker appointed Lolita M. Lukose to beginhearing cases in March of 2019. Judge Lukose earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1998 from NewYork University and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the American University, WashingtonCollege of Law. From 2002 to 2005, she served as an assistant district attorney in theDistrict Attorney’s Office in Bronx, New York. From 2005 to 2007, she served as anassistant attorney general in the Office of the Attorney General for the District ofColumbia. From 2007 to 2010, she served as an attorney advisor in the National SecurityLaw Section at the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Department of Homeland Security(DHS), and as an assistant chief counsel with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHSin the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office in Arlington, Virginia. From 2010 to 2019, sheserved as a trial attorney with the Counterterrorism Section of the National SecurityDivision at the Department of Justice. Judge Lukose is a member of the District ofColumbia and New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Lukose were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Lukose decided 380 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 203, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 175. Converted to percentage terms, Lukose denied 46.1 percent and granted 53.9 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Lukose'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 Lukose's denial rate of 46.1 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court where Judge Lukose decided these cases denied asylum 55.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Lukose'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 Lukose, 5.3% 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 Lukose came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 42.6% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Lukose were: Honduras (20.3%), Guatemala (12.4%), Ethiopia (4.2%), Egypt (3.7%). 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%).