Judge Theodore Doolittle

FY 2020 - 2025*, Hartford Immigration Court

*data covers the first 11 months of fiscal year 2025

Published Nov 7, 2025

Theodore M. Doolittle was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in November 2023. Judge Doolittle earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1986 from Harvard University and a Juris Doctor in 1992 from the University of Connecticut School of Law. From 2017 to 2023, he served as a Healthcare Advocate for the State of Connecticut, heading the Office of the Healthcare Advocate. From 2014 to 2016, he worked for LeClairRyan and CGI Federal, concentrating on healthcare anti-fraud matters, in Annapolis and Woodlawn, Maryland. From 2011 to 2014, he served as the first deputy director for Policy and Enforcement at the Center for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health & Human Services, in Washington, D.C. From 2008 to 2011, he was an associate general counsel with UnitedHealthcare’s Legal & Regulatory Affairs Department in Hartford. From 2001 to 2008, he served as an assistant attorney general in the Healthcare Fraud, Whistleblower and Insurance Advocacy Department of the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office. From 1995 to 2001, he was a trial attorney in the Tax Division, Department of Justice, where he litigated in the Appellate Section and the Southern Criminal Enforcement Section in Washington, D.C., including a detail as a special assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. From 1994 to 1995, he served as law clerk to the Honorable Roger L. Wollman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and from 1992 to 1994, he served as law clerk to the Honorable James T. Turner of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. Judge Doolittle is a member of the Connecticut Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Doolittle were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025. During this period, court records show that Judge Doolittle decided 188 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 106, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 80. Converted to percentage terms, Doolittle denied 42.6 percent and granted 57.5 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Doolittle'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 Doolittle's denial rate of 42.6 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 58.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Hartford Immigration Court where Judge Doolittle decided these cases denied asylum 67.9 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Doolittle'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 Doolittle, 4.8% 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 Doolittle came from Ecuador. Individuals from this country made up 36.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Doolittle were: Guatemala (12.2%), Honduras (11.7%), Brazil (8.5%), Colombia (5.3%). 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%).