Judge Andrew J. Caborn

FY 2019 - 2024, Conroe Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General William Barr appointed Andrew J. Caborn to begin hearing cases in October2019. Judge Caborn earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from California State University, a JurisDoctor in 2007 from Whittier College, and a Master of Laws in 2015 from University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. From 2015 to 2019, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of theChief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Department of Homeland Security, in San Francisco. From 2013 to 2014, he served as a seniordeputy district attorney for the Tulare County District Attorney’s Office (TCDA), in Tulare,California. From 2008 to 2013, he served as a deputy district attorney, TCDA, in Tulare,California. In 2008, he worked as an associate attorney at Dapeer Rosenblit and Litvak LLP, inLos Angeles. Judge Caborn is a member of the California State Bar and theWashington State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Caborn were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Caborn decided 160 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 1, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 158. Converted to percentage terms, Caborn denied 98.8 percent and granted 1.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Caborn'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 Caborn's denial rate of 98.8 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Conroe Immigration Court where Judge Caborn decided these cases denied asylum 80.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Caborn'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 Caborn, 83.8% 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 Caborn came from Venezuela. Individuals from this country made up 24.4% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Caborn were: Mauritania (15.0%), Colombia (14.4%), Ecuador (7.5%), Honduras (5.0%). 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%).