Judge Marlem Nava

FY 2018 - 2023, San Francisco Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Marlem Nava was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in October 2022. Judge Nava earned a Bachelor of Science in 1997 from DePaul University and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from University of Illinois Chicago School of Law (formerly known as the John Marshall Law School). From 2016 to 2022, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in San Francisco. From 2015 to 2016, she was an associate attorney with the Salgado and Associates law firm in San Francisco. From 2013 to 2015, she was in private practice. From 2003 to 2013, she served as an assistant state’s attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Chicago. Judge Nava is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Nava were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Nava decided 129 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 57, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 70. Converted to percentage terms, Nava denied 54.3 percent and granted 45.8 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Nava'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 Nava's denial rate of 54.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the San Francisco Immigration Court where Judge Nava decided these cases denied asylum 29.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Nava'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 Nava, 30.2% 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 Nava came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 29.5% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Nava were: Colombia (17.1%), Honduras (11.6%), El Salvador (10.9%), Brazil (10.1%). 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%).