Judge Brock E. Taylor

FY 2018 - 2023, Oakdale Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Brock E. Taylor to begin hearing cases in October2018. Judge Taylor earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2001 from Brigham Young University, a Masterof Public Policy degree in 2005 from Duke University, and a Juris Doctor in 2005 from HarvardLaw School. From 2012 to 2018, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney'sOffice for the District of New Mexico. From 2010 to 2012, he was an attorney-advisor for theNational Security Division, DOJ. From 2009 to 2010, he was a law clerk for the HonorableEugene E. Siler, Jr., Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in London,Kentucky. From 2008 to 2009, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Robert C. Brack, DistrictJudge for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. From 2005 to 2008, he was ananalyst with the Central Intelligence Agency. Judge Taylor is a member of the District ofColumbia Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Taylor were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Taylor decided 186 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 100, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 85. Converted to percentage terms, Taylor denied 45.7 percent and granted 54.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Taylor'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 Taylor's denial rate of 45.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Oakdale Immigration Court where Judge Taylor decided these cases denied asylum 70.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Taylor'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 Taylor, 46.2% 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 Taylor came from Cuba. Individuals from this country made up 33.3% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Taylor were: Honduras (12.9%), Nicaragua (9.7%), India (5.4%), Guatemala (4.3%). 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%).