Judge Edwin Pieters

FY 2019 - 2024, New York Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Edwin E. Pieters was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021.Judge Pieters earned a Bachelor of Science in 1987 from State University of New York at NewPaltz; a Master of Political Science/Governmental Law in 1992 from City University of NewYork at Brooklyn College; a Master of Public Administration in 2000 from City University ofNew York at Baruch College; a Juris Doctorate in 2002 from the City University of New YorkLaw School at Queens College; and a Master of Law in 2005 from the State University of NewYork at Buffalo Law School. From 2018 to 2021, he served as a Hearing Officer for the NewYork City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. From 2006 to 2017, he served as anAssistant District Attorney at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, in Brooklyn. JudgePieters is a member of the New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Pieters were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Pieters decided 135 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 83, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 52. Converted to percentage terms, Pieters denied 38.5 percent and granted 61.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Pieters'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 Pieters's denial rate of 38.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the New York Immigration Court where Judge Pieters decided these cases denied asylum 34.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Pieters'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 Pieters, 3% 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 Pieters came from China. Individuals from this country made up 23.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Pieters were: India (17.0%), Russia (10.4%), Ecuador (9.6%), Honduras (8.1%). 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%).