Judge Denise A. Hinds Roach

FY 2018 - 2023, Newark Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Denise A. Hinds Roach as an immigration judge inJune 2020. Judge Hinds Roach earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1982 from Duquesne University anda Juris Doctor in 1986 from Duquesne University School of Law. From 2012 to 2019, she servedas a family court judge, in St. Croix, Virgin Islands. During her term as a family court judge, shealso served as a designated Supreme Court justice on the U.S. Virgin Islands Supreme Court.From 1994 to 2012, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for theDistrict of the Virgin Islands, in St. Croix, Virgin Islands. During that time, from 2006 to 2007,she also served as deputy criminal chief, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of the VirginIslands. In 1994, she served as an assistant attorney general with the U.S. Virgin IslandsDepartment of Justice. From 1991 to 1994, she served as an assistant solicitor with the FultonCounty Solicitor’s Office, in Atlanta. Judge Hinds Roach is a member of the Georgia State Bar,Pennsylvania State Bar, and U.S. Virgin Islands Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Hinds Roach were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Hinds Roach decided 200 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 43, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 157. Converted to percentage terms, Hinds Roach denied 78.5 percent and granted 21.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Hinds Roach'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 Hinds Roach's denial rate of 78.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Newark Immigration Court where Judge Hinds Roach decided these cases denied asylum 62.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Hinds Roach'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 Hinds Roach, 2.5% 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 Hinds Roach came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 27.5% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Hinds Roach were: Guatemala (17.0%), Honduras (13.0%), Mexico (7.5%), Ecuador (4.5%). 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%).