Judge Christine A. Bither

FY 2019 - 2024, San Diego Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Judge Bither was appointed as an Immigration Judge in January 2003. She received an undergraduate degree in 1969 from Marietta College, a Masters of Education degree in 1970 from the University of Massachusetts, a Masters in Education degree in 1982 from the University of Maine, and a Juris Doctorate in 1989 from the University of Maine School of Law. Judge Bither worked as an attorney and senior litigation counsel in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, from 1995 to 2003. From 1994 until 1995, she was in private practice in Portland, Maine. Judge Bither joined the Department of Justice through the Attorney General's Honor Law Program as an attorney in the District Counsel's office of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in San Francisco from 1989 to 1994. Judge Bither is a member of both the California and Maine Bars.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Bither were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Bither decided 188 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 9, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 178. Converted to percentage terms, Bither denied 94.7 percent and granted 5.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Bither'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 Bither's denial rate of 94.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the San Diego Immigration Court where Judge Bither decided these cases denied asylum 63.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Bither'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 Bither, 59% 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 Bither came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 49.5% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Bither were: Honduras (18.6%), El Salvador (9.6%), Mexico (9.0%), Haiti (6.4%). 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%).