Judge Jennifer R. Bell

FY 2020 - 2025*, Atlanta Immigration Court

*data covers the first 11 months of fiscal year 2025

Published Nov 7, 2025

Jennifer R. Bell was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in February 2023. Judge Bell earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Auburn University and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Samford University, Cumberland School of Law. From 2019 to 2022, she served as an attorney advisor for the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, Department of Health and Human Services, in Atlanta. From 2018 to 2019, she served as an assistant commonwealth’s attorney at the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney in Louisville, Kentucky. From 2010 to 2017, she served as a deputy district attorney for the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office in Montgomery, Alabama. From 2009 to 2010, she served as a judicial clerk in Auburn, Alabama. Judge Bell is a member of the Alabama State Bar and the Kentucky Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Bell were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025. During this period, court records show that Judge Bell decided 113 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 38, granted 8 other types of relief, and denied relief to 67. Converted to percentage terms, Bell denied 59.3 percent and granted 40.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Bell'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 Bell's denial rate of 59.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 58.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Atlanta Immigration Court where Judge Bell decided these cases denied asylum 84.6 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Bell'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 (77%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Bell, 19.5% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 17.1% 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 Bell came from Mexico. Individuals from this country made up 22.1% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Bell were: Nicaragua (18.6%), Venezuela (18.6%), Colombia (8.8%), Guatemala (8.8%). 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 (11.2%), Guatemala (11.2%), El Salvador (10.9%), Mexico (8.2%), China (5.2%), Venezuela (5.2%), India (5.1%), Ecuador (4.5%), Nicaragua (4.4%), Colombia (4.4%), Brazil (3.1%), Russia (3.1%), Cuba (2.8%).