Judge Kuyomars Golparvar

FY 2019 - 2024, Baltimore Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Kuyomars Golparvar to begin hearing cases in April 2016. Judge Golparvar received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1998 from The George Washington University and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. From 2004 through April 2016, Judge Golparvar served in various capacities, including: division chief, section chief, senior advisor to the principal legal advisor, deputy chief counsel, and assistant chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security. From 2003 through 2004, Judge Golparvar was an associate attorney for Deasy & Whitehill PC, in Pittsburgh. In 2013, Judge Golparvar joined the faculty at The George Washington University Law School where he serves as an adjunct professor. Judge Golparvar is a member of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Golparvar were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Golparvar decided 149 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 55, granted 5 other types of relief, and denied relief to 89. Converted to percentage terms, Golparvar denied 59.7 percent and granted 40.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Golparvar'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 Golparvar's denial rate of 59.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Baltimore Immigration Court where Judge Golparvar decided these cases denied asylum 50.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Golparvar'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 Golparvar, 13.4% 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 Golparvar came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 18.8% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Golparvar were: Honduras (15.4%), Guatemala (14.1%), Nigeria (12.1%), Cameroon (7.4%). 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%).