Judge Kandra K. Robbins

FY 2018 - 2023, Jena Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Kandra K. Robbins was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in October 2021. Judge Robbins earned a Bachelor of Science in 1990 from Central Michigan University and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from Northern Illinois University College of Law. From 1993 to 2000, she served as Staff Attorney/Prosecutor for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, in Michigan. From 2000 to 2006, she served as the Chief Judge for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribal Court, in Michigan. From 2006 to 2021, she served as an Administrative Law Judge, Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules, Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, State of Michigan, in Lansing. Judge Robbins is a member of the State Bar of Michigan.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Robbins were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Robbins decided 142 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 29, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 112. Converted to percentage terms, Robbins denied 78.9 percent and granted 21.1 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Robbins'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 Robbins's denial rate of 78.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Jena Immigration Court where Judge Robbins decided these cases denied asylum 88.6 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Robbins'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 Robbins, 44.4% 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 Robbins came from Colombia. Individuals from this country made up 11.3% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Robbins were: Nicaragua (11.3%), Turkey (10.6%), Honduras (9.2%), Somalia (5.6%). 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%).