Exploring Immigration Judges: From Appointments To Asylum Rates
In the labyrinthine world of immigration law, where the stakes are often life-altering, how do we measure the fairness and consistency of the system? The appointment of immigration judges and their subsequent rulings are critical to understanding the complexities and potential inequities within the American judicial process.
The intricacies of immigration law are brought into sharp relief when we examine the careers and decisions of those tasked with interpreting and applying it. For example, on the forefront of immigration law, decisions made by judges have far-reaching consequences for individuals seeking refuge, opportunity, or simply a chance at a better life.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Justin M. Price (also known as Justin Michael Judge, Justin m judge, Justin Michael) |
| Appointment Date | May 2019 (by Attorney General William Barr) |
| Education | Bachelor of Arts (1994) from the University of Maryland Baltimore County, Juris Doctor (2000) from West Virginia University College of Law |
| Career | Assistant Chief Counsel for the Office of Chief (2007-2019), General Attorney (2023) |
| Salary (2023) | $165,150 |
| Political Affiliation | Registered Republican |
| Court Location(s) | San Francisco, CA (Courtroom 19, 100 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94104) |
| Cases | Filed a case against Atchinson, Craig in Saluda County, SC on December 18, 2023. |
| Professional Links | Justin Price's LinkedIn Profile |
The appointment of Justin M. Price, by Attorney General William Barr in May 2019, underscores the dynamic nature of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Judge Price's background, with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Maryland Baltimore County and a Juris Doctor from West Virginia University College of Law, provides a foundation for his legal career. His experience as an Assistant Chief Counsel for the Office of Chief, from 2007 to 2019, further informs his judicial role. These initial facts illustrate the process by which individuals become involved in the legal system that governs immigration, and which subsequently can have enormous impact in many people's lives.
The Concord Immigration Court, falling under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, is a crucial component of the EOIR, which itself is a part of the Department of Justice. This court, located at 1855 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 850, Concord, CA 94520, represents a physical location where the laws concerning immigration status are applied.
Furthermore, Judge Price's career trajectory includes an appointment that began in May 2019. Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ) records indicate a consistent professional profile for him during the period between 2019 and 2023. The records indicate that in 2023, Justin M. Price was employed as a general attorney, with a reported salary of $165,150, which provides a snapshot of compensation within this field.
A case filed by Price on December 18, 2023, in Saluda County, SC, against Atchinson, Craig, provides insight into his legal work. This case was processed through the Saluda County Superior Courts. Moreover, his prior connections include the city of Philadelphia, PA. These details, even seemingly minor, add further dimension to the picture of Judge Price's career and his work within the legal system.
Moreover, the professional landscape is further populated by figures like Judge John M. Furlong Jr. in the Boston Immigration Court, also appointed by Attorney General William Barr in May 2019. Judge Furlong's educational background, with a Bachelor of Arts from Boston College (1988) and a Juris Doctor from Suffolk University (1994), highlights the path of individuals entering the field of law.
The influence of political affiliation is evident in the case of Justin Price, who is registered as a Republican, providing insights into how judicial appointments and affiliations can have an impact on the dynamics of the legal system. Understanding these connections and backgrounds gives a deeper view into the workings of these courts and those that have sway over them.
Examining the acceptance rates of judges offers a quantitative assessment of their judicial decisions. Some judges show high acceptance rates. Others show lower ones. For instance, it is documented that Judges Dana Leigh Marks and Patrick S. Savage have high acceptance rates, at 91.6% and 91% respectively. These statistics, though helpful, represent only one facet of assessing the judiciary.
Another factor to consider is the geographical dimension. The Los Angeles Immigration Court's 2024 data demonstrates that asylum approval rates vary considerably. For example, Judge Arlene E. Dorfman, between fiscal years 2019 and 2024, denied 65.5% of asylum claims, approving 34.5%. This contrasts with how other judges may make their decisions. These variations stress that immigration courts are not monoliths, but rather complex entities, driven by many factors.
The data provided by the EOIR offers grant rates by court, but it can be more beneficial to observe data related to the grant rates of each individual immigration judge. The differing asylum approval rates observed across the country, which can vary from 0% to 99% within the years 2017 to 2022, reinforce the reality that the judge assigned to a case can have a major effect on the outcome.
Judge Ahmed, who earned a Bachelor of Arts from Stanford University (2003), a Master of Science from the University of London (2005), and a Master of Studies (2007), presents a different educational journey. Judge Adams of the Orlando Immigration Court, appointed in October 2022, and her background with a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Central Florida (1992) and a Juris Doctor from Florida State University College of Law (1996), demonstrate the diverse paths that lawyers and judges take in their careers.
The diverse composition of those who serve as judges helps highlight the complexity of immigration court. Consider the context, the background of the judge, the facts of each case and the prevailing conditions. It can give us a greater appreciation of the challenges and complexities of immigration law.
