Judge Alicia Brooks

FY 2018 - 2023, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Alicia D. Brooks was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in December 2021. Judge Brooks earned a Bachelor of Science in 1988 and a Juris Doctor in 1991 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. From 2019 to 2021, she served as a Judicial Hearing Officer with the Clerk of Superior Court in Mecklenburg County in Charlotte, North Carolina. From 2014 to 2018, she served as an elected District Court Judge, in Charlotte. From 2003 to 2014, she was a solo practitioner with The Brooks Law Firm PC, in Charlotte. From 1999 to 2003, she was in private practice with Klein and Brooks, in Charlotte. From 1997 to 1999, she served as an Assistant District Attorney with the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office. From 1992 to 1997, she served as an Assistant Public Defender for Mecklenburg County. Judge Brooks is a member of the North Carolina Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Brooks were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Brooks decided 178 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 73, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 104. Converted to percentage terms, Brooks denied 58.4 percent and granted 41.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Brooks'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 Brooks's denial rate of 58.4 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Santa Ana Immigration Court where Judge Brooks decided these cases denied asylum 43.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Brooks'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 Brooks, 2.8% 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 Brooks came from China. Individuals from this country made up 21.3% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Brooks were: Mexico (15.7%), India (11.8%), Nicaragua (10.7%), Colombia (7.9%). 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%).