Judge Nina Froes

FY 2020 - 2025*, Chelmsford Immigration Court

*data covers the first 11 months of fiscal year 2025

Published Nov 7, 2025

Nina J. Froes was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Froes earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Roger Williams University School of Law. From 2013 to 2024, she was a solo immigration law practitioner at the Law Office of Nina J. Froes in New Mattapoisett, Massachusetts. From 2012 to 2013, she was a clinical fellow at the Immigration Law Clinic, School of Law, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. From 2010 to 2011, she was the legal director of the Immigrant Victims Representation Project, Immigration Department, Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Catholic Charities USA, in Fall River, Massachusetts. From 2008 to 2011, she was a fellow in the immigration unit at the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts in Worcester, Massachusetts. Judge Froes is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Rhode Island Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Froes were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025. During this period, court records show that Judge Froes decided 126 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 60, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 64. Converted to percentage terms, Froes denied 50.8 percent and granted 49.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Froes'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 Froes's denial rate of 50.8 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 58.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Chelmsford Immigration Court where Judge Froes decided these cases denied asylum 59.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Froes'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 Froes, 2.4% 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 Froes came from Brazil. Individuals from this country made up 37.3% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Froes were: Colombia (7.9%), Ecuador (7.1%), Guatemala (6.3%), India (6.3%). 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%).