Judge Alice Song Hartye

FY 2019 - 2024, Elizabeth Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Alice Song Hartye to begin hearing cases in October2018. Judge Hartye earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from Dickinson College and a JurisDoctor in 2005 from the Pennsylvania State University. From 2006 to 2018, she was an assistantchief counsel with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security inYork, Pennsylvania and Phoenix. From 2014 to 2015 and 2012 to 2013, she served as a specialassistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania inHarrisburg, Pennsylvania. From 2005 to 2006, she was a judicial law clerk, entering on dutythrough the Attorney General’s Honors Program, with immigration courts in Dallas and El Paso,Texas. Judge Hartye is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Hartye were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Hartye decided 154 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 39, granted 15 other types of relief, and denied relief to 100. Converted to percentage terms, Hartye denied 64.9 percent and granted 35.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Hartye'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 Hartye's denial rate of 64.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Elizabeth Immigration Court where Judge Hartye decided these cases denied asylum 78.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Hartye'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 Hartye, 39.6% 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 Hartye came from Cuba. Individuals from this country made up 11.0% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Hartye were: Honduras (11.0%), Guatemala (9.1%), Mexico (8.4%), Dominican Republic (7.1%). 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 (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%).