Judge Curtis G. White

FY 2019 - 2024, Adelanto Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Curtis G. White as an immigration judge in June2020. Judge White earned dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in 2001 from Idaho State Universityand a Master of Arts and Juris Doctor in 2006 from the University of New Mexico. From 2018 to2020, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel (OCC), Office of thePrincipal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department ofHomeland Security (DHS), in El Paso, Texas. From 2016 to 2018, he served as an assistant chiefcounsel, OCC, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Adelanto, California. From 2012 to 2016, he was in privatepractice, in Houston. From 2007 to 2012, he was in private practice, in Salt Lake City, exceptfrom 2010 to 2011, when he served as a prosecutor for the city of South Salt Lake, Utah. JudgeWhite is a member of the State Bar of Texas and the Utah State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge White were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge White decided 124 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 21, granted 11 other types of relief, and denied relief to 92. Converted to percentage terms, White denied 74.2 percent and granted 25.8 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge White'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 White's denial rate of 74.2 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Adelanto Immigration Court where Judge White decided these cases denied asylum 69.4 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge White'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 White, 50.8% 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 White came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 38.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge White were: Cameroon (14.5%), El Salvador (13.7%), Guatemala (8.9%), Nicaragua (3.2%). 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%).