Published Oct 26, 2022
Judge Burman was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 1998. Prior to his appointment at the Immigration Court in Memphis, Judge Burman served as an Immigration Judge at the Immigration Court in Los Angeles from April 1998 to February 2002. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Virginia in 1971, and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Maryland in 1978. From 1991 to 1998, Judge Burman worked as an assistant district counsel for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Baltimore, Maryland. He served as assistant general counsel at INS Headquarters in Washington, DC, from 1990 to 1991. Judge Burman worked as a general attorney for INS in Baltimore, from 1988 to 1990. From 1978 to 1988, he worked as an attorney in private practice in Baltimore. Judge Burman was in the U.S. Army from 1971 to 1975, and in the Maryland National Guard from 1975 to 1993. He is a member of the Maryland Bar.
Detailed data on decisions by Judge Burman were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Burman decided 675 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 540, granted 32 other types of relief, and denied relief to 103. Converted to percentage terms, Burman denied 15.3 percent and granted 84.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).
Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Burman's denial rate each fiscal year over this recent period. (Rates for years with less than 25 decisions are not shown.)
Compared to Judge Burman's denial rate of 15.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court where Judge Burman decided these cases denied asylum 57.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.
Judge Burman'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.
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.
When asylum seekers are not represented by an attorney, almost all of them (83%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Burman, 5.5% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 16.7% of asylum seekers are not represented.
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 Burman came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 32.4% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Burman were: Honduras (17.0%), Ethiopia (8.4%), Guatemala (7.7%), China (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 (18.2%), Guatemala (16.0%), Honduras (14.6%), Mexico (10.5%), China (7.5%), India (4.5%), Cuba (2.5%), Venezuela (2.1%), Ecuador (2.1%), Nicaragua (1.9%), Haiti (1.7%), Cameroon (1.5%), Nepal (1.2%).