Judge Andrea Hong

FY 2018 - 2023, Los Angeles Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Attorney General Barr appointed Andrea H. Hong to begin hearing cases in January 2020. Judge Hong earned a Bachelor of Science in 1996 from Case Western Reserve University and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of Akron, School of Law. From 2009 to 2019, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Los Angeles.From 2006 to 2009, she served as a deputy district attorney with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, in Riverside, California. From 2001 to 2004, she served as an assistant prosecutor with the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office, in Akron, Ohio. From 1999 to 2001, she served as an assistant city prosecutor with the Akron City Prosecutor’s Office, in Akron, Ohio. Judge Hong is a member of the State Bar of California.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Hong were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Hong decided 248 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 142, granted 7 other types of relief, and denied relief to 99. Converted to percentage terms, Hong denied 39.9 percent and granted 60.1 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Hong'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 Hong's denial rate of 39.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Los Angeles Immigration Court where Judge Hong decided these cases denied asylum 66.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Hong'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 Hong, 3.6% 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 Hong came from China. Individuals from this country made up 34.3% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Hong were: El Salvador (17.3%), Mexico (11.7%), Guatemala (10.5%), India (3.6%). 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%).