Judge Joseph La Rocca
FY 2016 - 2021, New Orleans Immigration Court
Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Judge La Rocca to begin hearing cases in June 2015.Judge La Rocca received a bachelor of arts degree in 1998 and a juris doctorate in 2001, bothfrom Louisiana State University. From July 2006 to May 2015, Judge La Rocca served at theU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in variouscapacities including senior attorney and assistant chief counsel, in New Orleans. From 2002 to2006, he was an attorney at David Ware & Associates, in Metairie, La. From 2001 to 2002,Judge La Rocca was an attorney at the Holliday Law Firm, in Baton Rouge, La. Judge La Roccais a member of the Louisiana State Bar.
Deciding Asylum Cases
Detailed data on Judge Larocca decisions were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2016 through 2021. During this period, Judge Larocca is recorded as deciding 993 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted 172, gave no conditional grants, and denied 821. Converted to percentage terms, Larocca denied 82.7 percent and granted (including conditional grants) 17.3 percent. Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Larocca's denial rate fiscal year-by-year over this recent period.
Compared to Judge Larocca's denial rate of 82.7 percent, nationally during this same period, immigration court judges denied 67.6 percent of asylum claims. In the New Orleans Immigration Court where Judge Larocca was based, judges there denied asylum 87.6 percent of the time. See Figure 2.
Judge Larocca can also be ranked compared to each of the 558 individual immigration judges serving during this period who rendered at least one hundred decisions in a city's immigration court. If judges were ranked from 1 to 558 - where 1 represented the highest denial percent and 558 represented the lowest - Judge Larocca here receives a rank of 212. That is 211 judges denied asylum at higher rates, and 346 denied asylum at the same rate or less often. Ranks are tallied separately for each immigration court. Should a judge serve on more than one court during this period, separate ranks would be assigned in any court that the judge rendered at least 100 asylum decisions in.
Why Do Denial Rates Vary Among Judges?
Denial rates reflect in part the differing composition of cases assigned to different immigration judges. For example, being represented in court and the nationality of the asylum seeker appear to often impact decision outcome. Decisions also appear to reflect in part the personal perspective that the judge brings to the bench.
If an asylum seeker is not represented by an attorney, almost all (88%) of them are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Larocca, 12.4% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 18.3% 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.
For Judge Larocca, the largest group of asylum seekers appearing before him came from Honduras. Individuals from this nation made up 48.6 % of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Larocca were: Guatemala (19.2 %), El Salvador (9.4%), Mexico (6.8%), India (4.5%). 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 (18.7%), Guatemala (16.0%), Honduras (15.0%), Mexico (11.8%), China (8.4%), India (3.8%), Cuba (2.7%), Haiti (1.8%), Venezuela (1.6%), Cameroon (1.5%), Nicaragua (1.2%), Nepal (1.2%), Ecuador (1.1%).
|Copyright 2021, TRAC Reports, Inc.|