Large hole in California immigration asylum circumstances in LA, SF

The dream of staying in California is changing into much less of a lock for hundreds of asylum seekers.

Remaining in the US usually comes down which decide will decide their destiny — and the distinction is especially stark in between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Extra liberal judges within the San Francisco denied simply 28.5% of circumstances between 2020 and late 2025, whereas Los Angeles judges had been proper on the nationwide common in denying virtually 60% of candidates, in accordance with knowledge compiled by the Transactional Data Entry Clearinghouse.

Final quarter, practically 80% of migrants searching for asylum within the US had been despatched packing, as immigration judges have taken a harder line underneath the Trump administration.

“It’s having an actual affect,” mentioned Andrew Arthur, a fellow on the Heart for Immigration Coverage and a former immigration decide.

“The Trump Administration is doing every kind of issues to drive down the asylum grant charge.”

Choose Tara Naselow-Nahas, who was appointed throughout the Obama administration in November 2009, had the best denial charges in California throughout two courtroom areas — Los Angeles-North and Van Nuys — the place she dealt with a mixed 525 circumstances and issued denials in roughly 91.6% of them, in accordance with TRAC knowledge.

Virtually 30% of Naselow-Nahas’ circumstances concerned folks from El-Salvador.

---

Obtain The California Publish App, comply with us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Choose Kevin W. Riley, who was a part of the identical class of latest judges as Naselow-Nahas, additionally ranked highest amongst California judges in denying asylum between 2020 and late 2025.

Riley has served in three courtroom jurisdictions throughout Southern California over the past 5 years, denying greater than 99% of asylum seekers in 350 circumstances in north Los Angeles and Adelanto federal courthouses, in accordance with TRAC knowledge.

That denial charge dropped throughout Riley’s time in Van Nuys, however his total rejection charge was nonetheless about 88%.

Katie G. Mullins, who was appointed to the bench in 2023 and oversaw 205 circumstances in Adelanto Immigration Court docket, denied asylum in 94.6% of her selections, in accordance with TRAC knowledge.

In the meantime, Shira M. Levine, who was appointed to San Francisco’s federal immigration bench in 2021 throughout the Biden administration, was the state’s most lenient decide in granting asylum, denying simply 2.1% of the 1,165 circumstances she oversaw — up till the Trump administration fired her in September.

President Trump has been on a rampage in eradicating immigration judges perceived as too far to the left. San Francisco’s immigration courtroom misplaced 12 of its 21 judges simply final yr.

An accompanying spike in deportations has occurred throughout that very same time.

In December, 38,215 unlawful migrants got the boot, 50% above the 19,265 in December 2023 underneath President Joe Biden and 35% greater than the 24,979 circumstances in December 2024, in accordance with TRAC.

Choose Frank Seminerio, in San Francisco, heard probably the most immigration circumstances of any decide in California over the past 5 years, denying 65.6% of asylum seekers, in accordance with TRAC knowledge.

His denial charge was far decrease than that of former colleague Nathan Aina, a decide who reportedly had the nickname “quiet murderer” amongst San Francisco attorneys for rejecting virtually all asylum claims. TRAC knowledge reveals Aina denied 94.2% of the circumstances he heard in San Francisco.

KSL NewsRadio reported final July that Aina accepted a federal employees’ buyout provided by the Trump administration.

California immigration courts make asylum selections involving candidates from everywhere in the world, together with China and Latin American nations like Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

The vast differential in how asylum seekers in California are granted, given different avenues of reduction, or denied mirrors an analogous pattern in New York.

“It’s a mighty large hole” between judges, mentioned Andrew Arthur, a fellow on the Heart for Immigration Coverage and a former immigration decide.

“Perhaps one decide simply will get very meritorious circumstances, and perhaps one decide will get non-meritorious circumstances. However it’s a vital challenge.”

The federal authorities can intervene to enchantment a decide’s ruling to grant asylum.

“I’m glad that immigration judges are the primary adjudicators,” Arthur mentioned, “not the final adjudicators.”