Judge John A. Duck Jr.
FY 2015 - 2020, Oakdale Immigration Court
Judge Duck was appointed as an Immigration Judge in October 1986. He received a Bachelor
of Science degree from Louisiana Tech University in 1972, and a Juris Doctorate from Louisiana
State University in 1975. Prior to joining the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Judge
Duck was in private practice from 1975 to 1986 in Oakdale, Louisiana. He also served as
assistant district attorney in Oberlin, Louisiana, from 1978 to 1986. Judge Duck is a member of
the Louisiana Bar.
Deciding Asylum Cases
Figure 1: Percent of Asylum Matters Denied
Detailed data on Judge Duck decisions were examined for the period covering
fiscal years 2015 through 2020. During this period, Judge
Duck is recorded as deciding 394 asylum claims on their merits. Of these,
he granted 58, gave no conditional grants, and denied 336.
Converted to percentage terms, Duck denied 85.3 percent and granted (including
conditional grants) 14.7 percent. Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Duck's
denial rate fiscal year-by-year over this recent period.
(Rates for years with less than 25 decisions are not shown.)
Compared to Judge Duck's denial rate of 85.3 percent, nationally
during this same period, immigration court judges denied 66.7 percent
of asylum claims. In the Oakdale Immigration Court where Judge Duck
was based, judges there denied asylum 86.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.
Figure 2: Comparing Denial Rates (percents)
Judge Duck can also be ranked compared to each of the 526 individual immigration judges
serving during this period who rendered at least one hundred decisions in a city's immigration court. If judges were ranked
from 1 to 526 - where 1 represented the highest denial percent and 526
represented the lowest - Judge Duck here receives a rank of 174. That is 173
judges denied asylum at higher rates, and 352 denied asylum at the same
rate or less often. Ranks are tallied separately for each immigration court. Should a judge serve on more than one court
during this period, separate ranks would be assigned in any court that the judge rendered at least 100 asylum decisions in.
Why Do Denial Rates Vary Among Judges?
Denial rates reflect in part the differing composition of cases assigned to
different immigration judges. For example, being represented in court and the nationality
of the asylum seeker appear to often impact decision outcome. Decisions also appear to
reflect in part the personal perspective that the judge brings to the bench.
Figure 3: Asylum Seeker Had Representation
If an asylum seeker is not represented by an
attorney, almost all (88%) of them are denied asylum. In contrast, a
significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful.
In the case of Judge Duck, 43.4% were not
represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole,
about 19% 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.
Figure 4: Asylum Decisions by Nationality
For Judge Duck, the largest group of asylum seekers appearing before him came
from Cuba. Individuals from this nation made up 24.9 % of his caseload.
Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Duck were:
Honduras (12.4 %), El Salvador (7.6%), India (7.4%), Mexico (6.6%).
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 (18.1%), Guatemala (15.1%), Honduras (14.7%), Mexico (11.8%), China (10.2%), India (3.7%), Cuba (2.5%), Haiti (1.8%), Cameroon (1.5%), Venezuela (1.3%), Nepal (1.3%), Nicaragua (1.1%), Bangladesh (1.0%).