Judge Robert C. Bartlemay, Sr.

FY 2019 - 2024, Eloy Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General William Barr appointed Robert C. Bartlemay Sr. to begin hearing cases inOctober 2019. Judge Bartlemay earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1980 from Indiana University and aJuris Doctor in 1983 from the University of Toledo. From 2010 to 2019, he served as a seniorattorney with Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and CustomsEnforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Phoenix. From 2007 to 2010,he served as an assistant chief counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Phoenix. From 1983 to 2007, heserved as a judge advocate for the U.S. Air Force in the following locations: Carswell Air ForceBase, Texas; Comiso Air Station, Italy; Reese Air Force Base, Texas; Holloman Air Force Base,New Mexico; McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey; Bolling Air Force Base, District ofColumbia; Kelly Air Force Base, Texas; Anderson Air Force Base, Guam; and Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio. Judge Bartlemay is a member of the Indiana State Bar andTexas State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Bartlemay were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Bartlemay decided 103 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 17, granted 5 other types of relief, and denied relief to 81. Converted to percentage terms, Bartlemay denied 78.6 percent and granted 21.4 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Bartlemay'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 Bartlemay's denial rate of 78.6 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Eloy Immigration Court where Judge Bartlemay decided these cases denied asylum 57.3 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Bartlemay'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 Bartlemay, 61.2% 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 Bartlemay came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 22.3% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Bartlemay were: Peru (7.8%), Nicaragua (6.8%), Guatemala (5.8%), Colombia (4.9%). 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%).