Judge Timothy R. Everett

FY 2019 - 2024, Los Angeles - Wla Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Everett in April 2013. Judge Everett received a bachelor of arts degree in 1980 from Louisiana State University; a master of arts degree and a juris doctorate in 1986 from Tulane University and Tulane University Law School respectively; and a master of studies in environmental law in 2000 from Vermont Law School. From March 2009 to April 2013, Judge Everett served as an assistant chief counsel, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Los Angeles. From January 2000 to March 2009, he was a solo practitioner in Los Angeles. During that time from March 2000 to December 2000, he was an interim directing attorney for the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles. From August 1999 to December 1999, Judge Everett worked as a legal intern at the National Wildlife Foundation in Washington, D.C. From May 1996 to August 1998, he was a solo practitioner in Los Angeles. From May 1991 to May 1996, Judge Everett served as a directing attorney of the Domestic Legal Department at El Rescate Legal Services in Los Angeles. From April 1990 to May 1991, he was a staff attorney at Ayuda Legal Services in Washington, D.C. From 1989 to 1990, he served as an associate attorney at the Law Office of William Van Wyke in Washington, D.C. Judge Everett is a member of the State Bar of California and the Florida Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Everett were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Everett decided 546 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 218, granted 18 other types of relief, and denied relief to 310. Converted to percentage terms, Everett denied 56.8 percent and granted 43.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Everett'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 Everett's denial rate of 56.8 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Los Angeles - Wla Immigration Court where Judge Everett decided these cases denied asylum 63.6 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Everett'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 Everett, 7.9% 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 Everett came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 25.1% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Everett were: China (18.7%), Guatemala (16.5%), El Salvador (16.1%), Honduras (4.4%). 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%).