Judge Carey R. Holliday

FY 2021 - 2026*, Baton Rouge Immigration Court

*data covers the first 9 months of fiscal year 2026

Published Aug 27, 2026

Judge Holliday was appointed as an Immigration Judge in May 2006. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1974 from Louisiana State University and a Juris Doctorate in 1977 from Paul Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University. From 1992 to May 2006, Judge Holliday served as a senior litigator and from 1991 to 1992 served as general counsel in the Louisiana Department of Justice in Baton Rouge. She was in private practice from 1981 to 1992. Judge Holliday served as a staff attorney for the Louisiana State Senate from 1977 to 1981. She is a member of the Louisiana Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Holliday were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2021 through the first 9 months of 2026. During this period, court records show that Judge Holliday decided 415 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 0, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 413. Converted to percentage terms, Holliday denied 99.5 percent and granted 0.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Holliday'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 Holliday's denial rate of 99.5 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 62.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Baton Rouge Immigration Court where Judge Holliday decided these cases denied asylum 97.3 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Holliday'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 (74%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Holliday, 35.9% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 18.8% 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 Holliday came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 47.5% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Holliday were: Mexico (21.7%), Guatemala (13.5%), El Salvador (3.4%), Nicaragua (3.4%). See Figure 4.

In the nation as a whole during this same period, major nationalities of asylum seekers, in descending order of frequency, were Honduras (10.1%), Guatemala (9.4%), Mexico (9.1%), El Salvador (8.7%), Venezuela (6.8%), Colombia (5.6%), Ecuador (5.3%), Nicaragua (4.8%), India (4.7%), China (4.7%), Russia (3.3%), Brazil (3.2%), Peru (2.9%).