Judge Tamar H. Wilson

FY 2019 - 2024, Newark Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker appointed Tamar H. Wilson to begin hearingcases in March 2019. Judge Wilson earned a Bachelor of Science in 1998 from the University ofSouthern Colorado and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the University of Denver, College of Law.From 2017 to 2018, she served as a district court magistrate for the 18th Judicial District inCentennial, Colorado. From 2015 to 2017, she served as an assistant county attorney at theArapahoe County Attorney’s Office in Aurora, Colorado. From 2013 to 2015, she served as adeputy district attorney in the special victims unit and general felony prosecutions for the 18thJudicial District in Centennial, Colorado. From 2009 to 2012, she was a staff attorney at theColorado District Attorneys’ Council, in Denver, Colorado. From 2002 to 2009, she served as adeputy district attorney and a chief deputy district attorney for the 5th Judicial District inBreckenridge, Eagle, Georgetown and Leadville, Colorado. Judge Wilson is a member of theColorado Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Wilson were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Wilson decided 424 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 116, granted 13 other types of relief, and denied relief to 295. Converted to percentage terms, Wilson denied 69.6 percent and granted 30.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Wilson'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 Wilson's denial rate of 69.6 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Newark Immigration Court where Judge Wilson decided these cases denied asylum 67 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Wilson'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 Wilson, 13.9% 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 Wilson came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 15.1% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Wilson were: Honduras (15.1%), Guatemala (13.7%), Ecuador (10.1%), Brazil (7.5%). 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%).