Judge Steven J. Connelly

FY 2019 - 2024, Buffalo Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Connelly in October 2010. Judge Connelly received a bachelor of arts degree in 1983 and a juris doctorate in 1986, both from the State University of New York at Buffalo. From 2003 to October 2010, he worked as an assistant chief counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Buffalo, N.Y. From 1994 to 2003, Judge Connelly was a trial attorney and an assistant district counsel for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, Buffalo. During that time, from 2000 to 2003, he was designated as a civil special assistant U.S. attorney for the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of New York. From 1992 to 1994, Judge Connelly worked as an attorney for the International Institute of Buffalo, representing individuals in immigration court proceedings. From 1989 to 1992, he was an attorney in Buffalo for Serotte, Reich and Seipp, which specialized in the practice of U.S. immigration law. Judge Connelly is a member of the New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Connelly were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Connelly decided 181 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 67, granted 5 other types of relief, and denied relief to 109. Converted to percentage terms, Connelly denied 60.2 percent and granted 39.8 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Connelly'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 Connelly's denial rate of 60.2 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Buffalo Immigration Court where Judge Connelly decided these cases denied asylum 58.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Connelly'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 Connelly, 9.4% 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 Connelly came from Brazil. Individuals from this country made up 11.6% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Connelly were: Guatemala (8.3%), Ecuador (6.1%), Russia (6.1%), Angola (5.5%). 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%).