Judge Ralph E. Girvin

FY 2018 - 2023, Chaparral Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Ralph E. Girvin Jr., as an Immigration Judge inOctober 2020. Judge Girvin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Texas at ElPaso and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from St. Mary’s University School of Law. From 2018 to 2020,he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal LegalAdvisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in El Paso,Texas. From 2016 to 2018, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Western District ofTexas. From 2000 to 2016, he served as an assistant attorney and chief of the Civil and CriminalDivisions, for the County of El Paso, Texas. From 1996 to 1999, he served as an assistant districtattorney for the 34th Judicial District of Texas. From 1986 to 1992, he served in variouscapacities in the U.S. Army Reserve and the Texas Army National Guard. Judge Girvin is amember of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Girvin were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Girvin decided 122 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 14, granted 18 other types of relief, and denied relief to 90. Converted to percentage terms, Girvin denied 73.8 percent and granted 26.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Girvin'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 Girvin's denial rate of 73.8 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Chaparral Immigration Court where Judge Girvin decided these cases denied asylum 66.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Girvin'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 Girvin, 64.8% 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 Girvin came from Nicaragua. Individuals from this country made up 19.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Girvin were: Turkey (19.7%), Colombia (13.1%), Venezuela (9.0%), Ecuador (6.6%). 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%).