Published Oct 19, 2023
Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Sean D. Clancy to begin hearing cases in June 2018.Judge Clancy earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Mississippi and a JurisDoctor in 1996 from Washington and Lee University. From 2017 to 2018, he worked as deputychief for the Service Center Law Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Dallas. He served as associate counsel for USCIS,DHS, from 2013 to 2014 in Burlington, Vt., and from 2014 to 2017 in Dallas. From 2010 to2013, he was special assistant U.S. attorney for the Department of Justice in Brownsville, Texas.From 2003 to 2013, he was assistant chief counsel for the Immigration and CustomsEnforcement, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor in Harlingen, Texas. From 2002 to 2003, hewas assistant district counsel for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. From 1998to 2002, he was assistant attorney general for Tennessee in Nashville. From 1997 to 1998, wasan attorney with Anderson/Clancy Law firm in Jackson, Tenn. From 1996 to 1997, he served inthe Peace Corps in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. Judge Clancy is a member of the Tennessee Bar.
Detailed data on decisions by Judge Clancy were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Clancy decided 102 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 71, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 27. Converted to percentage terms, Clancy denied 26.5 percent and granted 73.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).
Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Clancy's denial rate each fiscal year over this recent period. (Rates for years with less than 25 decisions are not shown.)
Compared to Judge Clancy's denial rate of 26.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Memphis Immigration Court where Judge Clancy decided these cases denied asylum 83.7 percent of the time. See Figure 2.
Judge Clancy'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.
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 Clancy, 0% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 15.7% 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.
The largest group of asylum seekers appearing before Judge Clancy came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 25.5% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Clancy were: Guatemala (22.5%), Venezuela (13.7%), El Salvador (10.8%), Nicaragua (8.8%). 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%).