Judge Denise N. Slavin

FY 2019 - 2024, Baltimore Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Judge Slavin was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 1995. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Maryland Baltimore County in 1977, and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Maryland at Baltimore Law School in 1982. From 1990 to 1995, she served as a senior trial attorney for the Office of Special Investigations, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. From 1987 to 1990, she worked as a trial attorney with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, Baltimore District Office. From 1982 to 1987, Judge Slavin served as an assistant general counsel and, from 1981 to 1982, as an intergroup relations representative (investigator) both with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations in Baltimore. Judge Slavin is a member of the Maryland Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Slavin were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Slavin decided 114 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 84, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 30. Converted to percentage terms, Slavin denied 26.3 percent and granted 73.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Slavin'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 Slavin's denial rate of 26.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Baltimore Immigration Court where Judge Slavin decided these cases denied asylum 50.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Slavin'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 Slavin, 3.5% 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 Slavin came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 56.1% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Slavin were: Guatemala (18.4%), Honduras (18.4%), Romania (2.6%), Congo (0.9%). 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%).