Minneapolis, MN — In the sprawling halls of Fort Snelling immigration court, the fates of asylum seekers such as Fernanda from Ecuador hinge not just on their harrowing stories but also, significantly, on which judge hears their case. Fernanda, cradling her American-born baby, approached Immigration Judge Katherine L. Hansen with uncertainty, admitting her unfamiliarity with the asylum process. Meanwhile, a Mexican immigrant pleaded his case before Immigration Judge Monte G. Miller, apologizing for his illegal entry due to safety fears back home.
The outcomes of these cases often depend starkly on the judge assigned. Data has revealed that Judge Hansen approves 60% of asylum applications, a high compared to other judges at the same court. In stark contrast, Judge Miller’s approval rate stands at only 11%. This disparity underscores a national issue dubbed by some experts as “refugee roulette,” where the randomness of judge assignment can critically impact the likelihood of an asylum seeker being allowed to stay in the U.S.
Unlike other judicial proceedings familiar to most Americans, immigration court does not allow for jury trials, and proceedings are typically closed to the public. Moreover, immigrants are not guaranteed legal representation if they cannot afford it. Between 2018 and 2023, nationally, immigration judges granted asylum in 35% of cases, with Minnesota judges approving 30% on average.
The wide variance in approval rates has raised concerns among legal professionals. Experienced immigration attorneys are forced to strategize based on the track records of specific judges, often advising clients differently depending on the judge to whom they are assigned. Migration patterns have even been influenced, with some asylum seekers relocating in hopes of appearing before a more lenient judge.
This “roulette” extends beyond Minnesota. In Atlanta, judges are known to approve fewer than 5% of applications, while in Chicago, Judge Gina Reynolds grants asylum in 90% of the cases she hears. The implications are profound, affecting not just the lives of the applicants but also how attorneys approach each case.
Legal experts express frustration over the lack of consistency and transparency in asylum rulings. St. Paul immigration attorney Kim Hunter, with 23 years of experience, noted the evolution in her approach to cases due to this variability. Now, data on judges’ approval rates are crucial in her preparations and her dialogue with clients.
Amid these challenges, there are moments of relief and affirmation. One Somali woman, despite being reassigned last-minute to a new judge previously known for strict immigration enforcement, successfully pleaded her case by detailing her persecution experiences, including forced marriage and her sibling’s murder. The judge recognized the clear failure of the Somali government to protect women from such abuses, granting her asylum after a taxing hearing.
This patchwork of judgments reflects broader issues within the U.S. immigration system’s handling of asylum requests — where the gap between the most lenient and the most stringent judges is vast, influenced by their backgrounds and previous roles. For many asylum seekers, navigating this complex and unpredictable system, the hope for refuge and safety in the U.S. remains a gamble heavily dependent on judicial assignment.