Judge J. Traci Hong

FY 2019 - 2024, Arlington Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Hong in April 2013. Judge Hong received a bachelor of arts degree in 1992 from The University of Texas at Austin and a juris doctorate in 1995 from The University of Texas School of Law. From February 2011 to April 2013, she served as a senior policy advisor for the Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Washington, D.C. From March 2007 to January 2011, Judge Hong served as counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. From June 2003 to March 2007, she worked for the Asian American Justice Center in Washington, D.C. as an immigration staff attorney and the immigration program director. From January 2000 to May 2003, Judge Hong was a staff attorney for the American Immigration Law Foundation in Washington, D.C. From August 1995 to December 1999, she practiced immigration law with the law firm of Tidwell Swaim & Associates, P.C., in Dallas. Judge Hong is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Hong were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Hong decided 106 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 73, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 32. Converted to percentage terms, Hong denied 30.2 percent and granted 69.8 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Hong'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 Hong's denial rate of 30.2 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court where Judge Hong decided these cases denied asylum 54.6 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Hong'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 Hong, 1.9% 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 Hong came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 25.5% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Hong were: Ethiopia (13.2%), Guatemala (11.3%), Honduras (11.3%), China (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 (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%).