Published Oct 19, 2023
Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Dawn M. Kulick as an Immigration Judge inDecember 2020. Judge Kulick earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from Chatham College and aJuris Doctor in 2003 from New York Law School. From 2016 to 2020, she served as an assistantchief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Department of Homeland Security, in Miami and Philadelphia. From 2014 to 2016, she served asa judicial law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for U.S.Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton, in Miami. For eight years, she served as an assistant stateattorney, felony division chief, and homicide prosecutor in the Miami-Dade State Attorney’sOffice. For two years, she worked as a business development specialist, National LitigationPractice Group, Greenberg Traurig PA, in Miami. Prior to law school, she worked in thecorporate world for eight years, in New York. Her experience there includes HarperCollinsPublishers, Children’s Books, and the Business Affairs Department, International Division ofSony Music Entertainment Inc. Judge Kulick is a member of the Florida State Bar.
Detailed data on decisions by Judge Kulick were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Kulick decided 111 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 67, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 44. Converted to percentage terms, Kulick denied 39.6 percent and granted 60.4 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).
Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Kulick's denial rate each fiscal year over this recent period. (Rates for years with less than 25 decisions are not shown.)
Compared to Judge Kulick's denial rate of 39.6 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Philadelphia Immigration Court where Judge Kulick decided these cases denied asylum 54.7 percent of the time. See Figure 2.
Judge Kulick'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 Kulick, 1.8% 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 Kulick came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 39.6% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Kulick were: Honduras (16.2%), El Salvador (10.8%), China (7.2%), Russia (7.2%). 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 (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%).