Judge Alison M. Brown

FY 2019 - 2024, Cleveland Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Judge Brown received a bachelor of arts degree in 1990 from University of North Carolina at Greensboro and a juris doctorate degree in 1995 from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. From 2008 to April 2010, Judge Brown worked as a private attorney for the Peck Law Firm in Omaha, Neb. From 2001 to 2008, she was a regional attorney for Justice for Our Neighbors, also in Omaha. From 1999 to 2001, Judge Brown was an attorney for the American Bar Association, Center for Immigration Law and Representation, in Washington, D.C. From1996 to 1999, she was an attorney for the Northern Carolina Immigrants Legal Assistance Project in Raleigh, N.C. Judge Brown is a member of the Maryland State Bar, Nebraska State Bar and North Carolina State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Brown were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Brown decided 182 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 8, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 173. Converted to percentage terms, Brown denied 95.1 percent and granted 4.9 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Brown'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 Brown's denial rate of 95.1 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Cleveland Immigration Court where Judge Brown decided these cases denied asylum 77.3 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Brown'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 (77%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Brown, 12.1% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 16.4% 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 Brown came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 42.9% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Brown were: El Salvador (20.3%), Mexico (14.3%), Honduras (11.0%), China (1.6%). 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 (14.0%), Guatemala (13.2%), Honduras (12.4%), Mexico (8.2%), China (6.1%), India (5.4%), Venezuela (4.0%), Ecuador (3.7%), Nicaragua (3.5%), Colombia (2.9%), Cuba (2.6%), Brazil (2.6%), Russia (2.4%).