Judge Jennifer Winfield

FY 2018 - 2023, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Jennifer A. Winfield was appointed as an Immigration Judge in March 2022. Judge Winfield earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from Saint Louis University and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Indiana University – Indianapolis School of Law. From 2020 to 2022, she served as the Deputy Title IX Officer and Assistant Director of the Title IX, Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office for the University of California, in Riverside, California. From 2008 to 2020, she served as a Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney for the White-Collar Unit, Civil Rights Coordinator, Human Trafficking Coordinator and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri in Saint Louis. From 2006 to 2008, she served as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney with the Saint Louis County Prosecutor’s Office. From 2002 to 2005, she served as an Assistant Public Defender with the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office in Saint Louis City. Judge Winfield is a member of the Missouri Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Winfield were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Winfield decided 107 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 40, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 65. Converted to percentage terms, Winfield denied 60.7 percent and granted 39.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Winfield'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 Winfield's denial rate of 60.7 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 Winfield decided these cases denied asylum 43.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Winfield'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 Winfield, 4.7% 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 Winfield came from China. Individuals from this country made up 16.8% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Winfield were: Mexico (15.0%), El Salvador (9.3%), Colombia (8.4%), Indonesia (6.5%). 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%).