Judge Cory M. Picton

FY 2019 - 2024, San Francisco Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Cory M. Picton to begin hearing cases in February2018. Judge Picton earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1995 from Dominican University and aJuris Doctor in 2000 from Saint Louis University School of Law. From 2008 to 2018, he servedas an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, in Tucson, Ariz.From 2001 to 2018, he worked for the U.S. Marine Corps, serving as a civil law attorney, 2001to 2003, at Camp Pendleton, Calif.; defense counsel, 2003 to 2004, also at Camp Pendleton;special assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia, 2005to 2006, in Norfolk, Va.; government prosecutor, 2004 to 2008, also in Norfolk; and as aregional judge advocate, 2008 to 2018. Judge Picton is a member of the Missouri State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Picton were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Picton decided 510 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 275, granted 13 other types of relief, and denied relief to 222. Converted to percentage terms, Picton denied 43.5 percent and granted 56.4 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Picton'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 Picton's denial rate of 43.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the San Francisco Immigration Court where Judge Picton decided these cases denied asylum 28.3 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Picton'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 Picton, 5.9% 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 Picton came from India. Individuals from this country made up 30.6% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Picton were: Mexico (16.1%), Guatemala (13.7%), El Salvador (12.7%), China (5.5%). 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 (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%).