Published Oct 26, 2022
Judge Reese was appointed as an Immigration Judge in April 1997. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1977 from Louisiana Tech University, and a Juris Doctorate from Southern University Law Center in 1989. From 1989 to 1997, Judge Reese served as assistant district counsel, for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, in New Orleans, Louisiana. She is a member of the Louisiana Bar.
Detailed data on decisions by Judge Reese were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2017 through 2022. During this period, court records show that Judge Reese decided 127 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 1, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 126. Converted to percentage terms, Reese denied 99.2 percent and granted 0.8 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).
Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Reese's denial rate each fiscal year over this recent period. (Rates for years with less than 25 decisions are not shown.)
Compared to Judge Reese's denial rate of 99.2 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 63.8 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Oakdale Immigration Court where Judge Reese decided these cases denied asylum 83.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.
Judge Reese'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 Reese, 41.7% 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 Reese came from Cuba. Individuals from this country made up 24.4% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Reese were: Honduras (12.6%), India (10.2%), El Salvador (9.4%), Eritrea (8.7%). 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%).