Judge Mary A. Futcher

FY 2020 - 2025*, Philadelphia Immigration Court

*data covers the first 11 months of fiscal year 2025

Published Nov 7, 2025

Mary A. Futcher was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Futcher earned a Bachelor of Science in 1975 from East Stroudsburg University and a Juris Doctor in 1985 from the University of Bridgeport School of Law (currently Quinnipiac University School of Law). From 2020 to 2023, she served as a supervisory assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Allentown. From 2010 to 2020, she served as a trial attorney in the Counterterrorism Section, National Security Division, Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C. From 2006 to 2010, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Allentown. From 2003 to 2006, she served as the attorney-in-charge at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey in Trenton. From 1992 to 2003, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey in Camden and Trenton. From 1991 to 1992, she was an associate at McKissock and Hoffman PC in Philadelphia. From 1985 to 1991, she served as an assistant district attorney at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. Judge Futcher is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Futcher were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025. During this period, court records show that Judge Futcher decided 108 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 8, granted 5 other types of relief, and denied relief to 95. Converted to percentage terms, Futcher denied 88.0 percent and granted 12.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Futcher'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 Futcher's denial rate of 88.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 58.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Philadelphia Immigration Court where Judge Futcher decided these cases denied asylum 54.5 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Futcher'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 Futcher, 13.9% 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 Futcher came from Brazil. Individuals from this country made up 21.3% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Futcher were: Guatemala (20.4%), Honduras (18.5%), Ecuador (13.9%), Mexico (5.6%). 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%).