Judge Clay N. Martin

FY 2019 - 2024, San Antonio Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed Clay N. Martin to begin hearing cases in June 2016. Judge Martin earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1984 from Hendrix College and a Juris Doctor in 1987 from the St. Mary’s University School of Law. From 2008 through May 2016, Judge Martin served as a senior attorney for the Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS). From 2002 through 2007, Judge Martin served as an assistant chief counsel for OCC, ICE, DHS. From 1995 through 2002, Judge Martin served as chief deputy prosecuting attorney for the 18th West Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, in Polk and Montgomery counties, Ark. From 1992 through 1995, Judge Martin served as an assistant district attorney for the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, in San Antonio. From 1989 through 1991, Judge Martin served as an attorney for Riddle and Brown, in Dallas. From 1988 through 1989, Judge Martin served as an attorney for Soules and Wallace, in San Antonio. From 1987 through 1988, Judge Martin served as an attorney for Hill, Heard, Oneal, Gilstrap & Goetz, in Arlington, Texas. Judge Martin is a member of the Arkansas Bar and the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Martin were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Martin decided 160 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 60, granted 9 other types of relief, and denied relief to 91. Converted to percentage terms, Martin denied 56.9 percent and granted 43.1 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Martin'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 Martin's denial rate of 56.9 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the San Antonio Immigration Court where Judge Martin decided these cases denied asylum 46.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Martin'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 Martin, 6.9% 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 Martin came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 48.1% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Martin were: Guatemala (11.3%), Venezuela (10.6%), El Salvador (8.1%), Angola (4.4%). 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%).