Judge Francisco R. Prieto

FY 2018 - 2023, New York - Det Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker appointed Francisco R. Prieto to begin hearingcases in March 2019. Judge Prieto earned a Bachelor of Business Administration in 1992 fromHofstra University and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from St. John’s University School of Law. From2010 to 2019, he served as an assistant chief counsel with Immigration and CustomsEnforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York, New York. From2009 to 2010, he served as an assistant chief counsel ICE, in Miami, Florida. From 2007 to 2009,he served as an assistant attorney general at the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office, in SantaFe, New Mexico. From 2006 to 2007, he served as an assistant district attorney with the FirstJudicial District Attorney’s Office, in Santa Fe. From 2004 to 2006, he was an examiner withAIG in New York, New York, and Jersey City, New Jersey. Judge Prieto is a member of theFlorida Bar, State Bar of New Mexico and New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Prieto were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Prieto decided 373 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 130, granted 19 other types of relief, and denied relief to 224. Converted to percentage terms, Prieto denied 60.1 percent and granted 40.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Prieto'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 Prieto's denial rate of 60.1 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the New York - Det Immigration Court where Judge Prieto decided these cases denied asylum 61.6 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Prieto'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 Prieto, 9.1% 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 Prieto came from . Individuals from this country made up . of his caseload. 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%).