Judge William Mabry Iii

FY 2019 - 2024, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Published Nov 7, 2024

William Mabry III was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Mabry earned a Bachelor of Science in 1988 from Arizona State University, and a Master of Public Administration in 1991 from Arizona State University while concurrently earning a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of New Mexico School of Law. From 2019 to 2022, he served as an associate judge for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, in Peridot, Arizona. From 2018 to 2019, he was an associate attorney with Davis and Miles, in Tempe, Arizona. From 1996 to 2018, he served as a senior field attorney with the National Labor Relations Board in Phoenix. From 1994 to 1995, he served as a staff attorney with the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Judge Mabry is a member of the State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of New Mexico.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Mabry Iii were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2019 through 2024. During this period, court records show that Judge Mabry Iii decided 221 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 165, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 52. Converted to percentage terms, Mabry Iii denied 23.5 percent and granted 76.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Mabry Iii'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 Mabry Iii's denial rate of 23.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 57.7 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Santa Ana Immigration Court where Judge Mabry Iii decided these cases denied asylum 53.7 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Mabry Iii'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 Mabry Iii, 1.8% 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 Mabry Iii came from China. Individuals from this country made up 28.1% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Mabry Iii were: India (14.5%), Indonesia (7.2%), Russia (6.8%), Egypt (6.3%). 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%).