Judge Chris A. Brisack

FY 2019 - 2024, Conroe Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Judge Brisack was appointed as an Immigration Judge in May 2005. He received an undergraduate degree in 1981 from the University of Nebraska, and a Juris Doctorate in 1985 from the University of Houston Law Center. From January to May 2005, Judge Brisack served as an attorney in the law firm of Rodriguez, Colvin, Chaney & Saenz, LL.P. in McAllen, Texas. He served as a partner and attorney in the law firm of Norquest & Brisack, LL.P. in McAllen from December 1991 to December 2004. Judge Brisack worked as an attorney in the Law Firm of Jarvis, Schwarz & Kittleman in McAllen from 1989 to December 1991. He also served as a law clerk and attorney at the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, in McAllen from 1988 to 1989. Judge Brisack is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Brisack were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Brisack decided 291 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 44, granted 25 other types of relief, and denied relief to 222. Converted to percentage terms, Brisack denied 76.3 percent and granted 23.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Brisack'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 Brisack's denial rate of 76.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Conroe Immigration Court where Judge Brisack decided these cases denied asylum 80.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Brisack'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 Brisack, 56.7% 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 Brisack came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 16.8% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Brisack were: Mexico (14.1%), Nicaragua (11.7%), Cameroon (10.3%), El Salvador (10.3%). 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%).