Judge Charlesa E. London

FY 2019 - 2024, New York - Det Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

Charlesa E. London was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in March 2022. Judge London earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from The State University of New York at Albany, and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from Albany Law School. From 2009 to 2022, she served as an Administrative Law Judge with the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, in Garden City, New York. From 2005 to 2009, she served as an Administrative Law Judge with the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Environmental Control Board, in New York. From 2002 to 2009, she was a solo practitioner in New York. From 2001 to 2005, she was Counsel to Gregory G. Smith and Associates in New York. From 2000 to 2001, she was Counsel to Thomas and Anthony LLP in New York. In 1998, she served as Judicial Clerk for The Honorable James P. King with the New York State Court of Claims. Judge London is a member of the New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge London were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge London decided 167 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 33, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 133. Converted to percentage terms, London denied 79.6 percent and granted 20.4 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge London'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 London's denial rate of 79.6 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the New York - Det Immigration Court where Judge London decided these cases denied asylum 57.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge London'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 London, 4.8% 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 London came from . Individuals from this country made up . of her caseload. 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%).