Judge Monique Harris

FY 2019 - 2024, Houston Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge Harris to begin hearing cases in June 2015.Judge Harris received a bachelor of science degree in 1991 from Southern University and a jurisdoctorate in 1998 from Southern University Law Center. From September 2013 to May 2015,Judge Harris served as associate legal counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Memphis, Tenn. From 1999 to 2013, she served atthe U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS, and former Immigration andNaturalization Service in various capacities including deputy chief counsel, assistant chiefcounsel and senior attorney, in New Orleans, Oakdale, La., and San Francisco. From 1998 to1999, Judge Harris worked as a judicial law clerk entering on duty through the AttorneyGeneral’s Honors Program. Judge Harris is a member of the Louisiana State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Harris were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Harris decided 108 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 0, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 108. Converted to percentage terms, Harris denied 100.0 percent and granted 0.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Harris'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 Harris's denial rate of 100.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Houston Immigration Court where Judge Harris decided these cases denied asylum 88.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Harris'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 Harris, 24.1% 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 Harris came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 43.5% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Harris were: Mexico (24.1%), Honduras (23.1%), Guatemala (4.6%), Colombia (3.7%). 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 (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%).