Full Breakdown
Disparities in Asylum Decisions Among California Immigration Judges
2/15/2026, 7:48:18 AM
Overview of the Asylum Landscape in California
The asylum-seeking process in California has become increasingly polarized, particularly between the immigration courts in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) reveals that judges in San Francisco denied only 28.5% of asylum cases from 2020 to late 2025, while their counterparts in Los Angeles denied nearly 60% of applicants. This disparity highlights the significant influence of judicial perspectives on the outcomes of asylum claims.
Key Judges and Their Denial Rates
Several judges have emerged as notable figures in this landscape. Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas, appointed during the Obama administration, exhibited the highest denial rate in California, rejecting approximately 91.6% of the 525 cases she handled across two locations in Los Angeles. Similarly, Judge Kevin W. Riley denied over 99% of asylum claims in 350 cases in north Los Angeles and Adelanto federal courthouses, with an overall rejection rate of about 88%.
In contrast, Judge Shira M. Levine, appointed in 2021 during the Biden administration, was the most lenient judge, denying only 2.1% of the 1,165 cases she oversaw before her dismissal in September 2025. Her removal was part of a broader trend during the Trump administration, which saw the ousting of judges perceived as too lenient, with San Francisco losing 12 of its 21 judges in a single year.
Impact of Judicial Decisions on Asylum Seekers
The stark differences in denial rates among judges have significant implications for asylum seekers. Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Policy and a former immigration judge, noted that the variation could stem from the types of cases judges receive, suggesting that some judges may handle more meritorious claims than others. This inconsistency raises concerns about fairness and the overall integrity of the asylum process.
The broader context of these judicial decisions is marked by an increase in deportations. In December 2025, 38,215 illegal migrants were deported, a 50% increase compared to December 2023 under President Joe Biden, and a 35% rise from December 2024.
Criticism of the Current System
Critics argue that the current asylum adjudication system is flawed, with significant disparities undermining the credibility of the process. The high denial rates in Los Angeles, particularly under judges like Riley and Naselow-Nahas, have drawn scrutiny. Arthur emphasized the importance of having immigration judges as the first adjudicators, stating, “I’m glad that immigration judges are the first adjudicators, not the last adjudicators.”
Conflicting Reports and Gaps
While the TRAC data provides a clear picture of denial rates, there is a lack of comprehensive information on the reasons behind these disparities. The federal government retains the ability to appeal a judge's ruling, but the extent to which this occurs and its impact on overall asylum outcomes remains unclear.
Conclusion
The immigration courts in California illustrate a significant divide in asylum adjudication, with varying denial rates reflecting broader political and judicial influences. As the landscape evolves, the implications for asylum seekers and the integrity of the immigration system continue to be a matter of concern and debate.
