Judge Robert B.C. McSeveney

FY 2019 - 2024, Seattle Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Robert B.C. McSeveney to begin hearing casesin November 2018. Judge McSeveney earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1980 from Seattle Universityand a Juris Doctor in 1984 from the University of Puget Sound Law School. In 2018, he servedas a superior court judge for the Chelan County Superior Court, in Washington. From 2011 to2017, he served as an immigration judge for the Executive Office for Immigration Review,Department of Justice, in San Diego. From 1994 to 2011, he served as a municipal court judgefor the City of Kent, in Washington. From 1988 to 1994, he was an attorney in private practice,in Bellevue, Washington. From 1985 to 1988, he was a deputy prosecuting attorney and assistantcity attorney for the City of Bellevue, in Washington. Judge McSeveney is a member of theWashington State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge McSeveney were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge McSeveney decided 2105 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 657, granted 6 other types of relief, and denied relief to 1442. Converted to percentage terms, McSeveney denied 68.5 percent and granted 31.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge McSeveney'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 McSeveney's denial rate of 68.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Seattle Immigration Court where Judge McSeveney decided these cases denied asylum 70.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge McSeveney'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 McSeveney, 25.7% 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 McSeveney came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 17.6% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge McSeveney were: Russia (11.2%), Brazil (11.0%), Colombia (9.5%), El Salvador (6.9%). 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%).