Judge Adrian N. Roe

FY 2019 - 2024, Boston Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Adrian N. Roe was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Roe received a Bachelor of Arts in 1981 from The Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor in 1984 from Boston University School of Law. From 1991 to 2023, he practiced as a general litigation attorney with various law firms in Pittsburgh to include most recently Roe & Simon LLC. From 1986 to 1991, he was an associate attorney with Wilmer Cutler & Pickering LLP in Washington, D.C. From 1984 to 1986, he was a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Thomas D. Lambros of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Judge Roe is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Roe were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Roe decided 253 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 94, granted 6 other types of relief, and denied relief to 153. Converted to percentage terms, Roe denied 60.5 percent and granted 39.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Roe'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 Roe's denial rate of 60.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Boston Immigration Court where Judge Roe decided these cases denied asylum 50.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Roe'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 Roe, 2.8% 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 Roe came from Brazil. Individuals from this country made up 61.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Roe were: Guatemala (7.5%), Angola (7.1%), El Salvador (5.5%), Colombia (4.3%). 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%).