Home > Immigration > Tools > Judge Reports

Judge Charles S. Greene III
FY 2018 - 2023, San Francisco Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Greene to begin hearing cases in June 2015.Judge Greene received a bachelor of arts degree in 1989 from Duke University and a jurisdoctorate in 1997 from the University of California Boalt Hall School of Law. From June 2010to May 2015, Judge Greene served as trial attorney within the Office of Immigration Litigation,Civil Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), in Washington, D.C. From 2005 to 2010, he servedat the National Security Division in various capacities including deputy unit chief and attorneyadvisor, National Security Division, DOJ, in Washington, D.C. From 2001 to 2005, JudgeGreene was an attorney at Hogan & Hartson LLP, in Washington, D.C. From 1990 to 1994, heserved in the U.S. Army. Judge Greene is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Greene were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Greene decided 1091 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 833, granted 39 other types of relief, and denied relief to 219. Converted to percentage terms, Greene denied 20.1 percent and granted 80.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Greene's denial rate each fiscal year over this recent period. (Rates for years with less than 25 decisions are not shown.)

Figure 1: Percent of Asylum Matters Denied

Nationwide Comparisons

Compared to Judge Greene's denial rate of 20.1 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the San Francisco Immigration Court where Judge Greene decided these cases denied asylum 29.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Greene'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.

Figure 2: Comparing Denial Rates (percents)

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.


When asylum seekers are not represented by an attorney, almost all of them (80%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Greene, 6.1% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 15.7% of asylum seekers are not represented.

Figure 3: Asylum Seeker Had Representation


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 Greene came from India. Individuals from this country made up 30.6% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Greene were: Guatemala (16.2%), Mexico (16.1%), El Salvador (13.3%), Nepal (4.9%). 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 (16.6%), Guatemala (15.1%), Honduras (13.8%), Mexico (9.2%), China (6.8%), India (5.1%), Venezuela (3.2%), Ecuador (3.1%), Cuba (2.4%), Nicaragua (2.3%), Brazil (2.0%), Colombia (1.4%), Cameroon (1.4%).

Figure 4: Asylum Decisions by Nationality
TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.