Judge Craig A. Harlow

FY 2019 - 2024, Laredo Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Harlow in February 2013. Judge Harlow received a bachelor of arts degree in 1989 from Lubbock Christian University in Lubbock, Texas, and a juris doctorate in 1992 from St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio. From June 2012 to February 2013, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security, in Dallas. From October 2010 to May 2012, Judge Harlow served as deputy chief counsel for ICE in Oakdale, La. From September 2007 to September 2010, he was the senior attorney for the New Orleans Office of Chief Counsel. From October 1992 to August 2007, Judge Harlow was an assistant chief counsel for ICE in Oakdale, entering on duty through the Attorney General's Honors Program. From May 1991 to August 1991, he was a summer law intern in the Oakdale Immigration Court. Judge Harlow is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Harlow were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Harlow decided 111 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 31, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 79. Converted to percentage terms, Harlow denied 71.2 percent and granted 28.8 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Harlow'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 Harlow's denial rate of 71.2 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Laredo Immigration Court where Judge Harlow decided these cases denied asylum 72.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Harlow'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 Harlow, 64% 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 Harlow came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 27.9% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Harlow were: Cuba (27.0%), Venezuela (24.3%), El Salvador (16.2%), Guatemala (2.7%). 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%).