Judge Lydia Tamez

FY 2018 - 2023, Houston - Greenspoint Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Lydia G. Tamez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021.Judge Tamez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1981 from Yale University and a Juris Doctor in 1985from Yale Law School. From 2019 to 2021, she served as an Associate Judge for the City ofHouston Municipal Courts. From 2016 to 2021, she was in private practice in Houston. From2015 to 2016, she was a Counselor at Law with Graves and Graves LLP, in Houston. From 2012to 2015, she was a Partner with Foster LLP, in Houston. From 2003 to 2011, she was anAssociate General Counsel; from 1999 to 2003, a Senior Attorney; and from 1995 to 1999, anAttorney for Legal and Corporate Affairs, with Microsoft Corporation, in Redmond,Washington. From 1986 to 1995, she was an Attorney for Tindall and Foster PC, in Houston.Judge Tamez is a member of the State Bar of Texas and the Washington State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Tamez were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Tamez decided 196 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 42, granted 3 other types of relief, and denied relief to 151. Converted to percentage terms, Tamez denied 77.0 percent and granted 22.9 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Tamez'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 Tamez's denial rate of 77.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Houston - Greenspoint Immigration Court where Judge Tamez decided these cases denied asylum 87.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Tamez'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 Tamez, 11.7% 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 Tamez came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 40.3% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Tamez were: El Salvador (27.0%), Venezuela (13.3%), Guatemala (5.6%), Colombia (2.6%). 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%).