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

Bar chart of fy

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.)

Nationwide Comparisons

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.

Bar chart of _NAME_

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.

Pie chart of represented

Figure 3: Asylum Seeker Had Representation
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.

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.

Pie chart of nationality

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%).

TRAC Copyright
Copyright 2020, TRAC Reports, Inc.

TRAC DHS Immigration Web Site