Judge James J. Miller, Jr.

FY 2018 - 2023, El Paso Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed James J. Miller, Jr. as an Immigration Judge inOctober 2020. Judge Miller earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1987 from Loras College, and a JurisDoctorate in 1990 from Hamline University School of Law. From 1998 to 2020, he served as thechief assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, PecosDivision, in Alpine, Texas. From 1994 to 1998, he served as the senior defense counsel, TrialDefense Service, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, at Fort Polk, Louisiana. From1990 to 1994, he served as a claims, civil and administrative law attorney, and prosecutor withthe U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps at Fort Bliss, Texas. Judge Miller is a memberof the Minnesota State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Miller were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Miller decided 115 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 45, granted 9 other types of relief, and denied relief to 61. Converted to percentage terms, Miller denied 53.0 percent and granted 46.9 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Miller'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 Miller's denial rate of 53.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the El Paso Immigration Court where Judge Miller decided these cases denied asylum 62.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Miller'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 Miller, 13.9% 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 Miller came from Venezuela. Individuals from this country made up 31.3% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Miller were: Mexico (20.0%), Nicaragua (13.0%), Cuba (8.7%), China (5.2%). 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%).