Judge Derek Julius

FY 2020 - 2025*, Charlotte Immigration Court

*data covers the first 11 months of fiscal year 2025

Published Nov 7, 2025

Derek C. Julius was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Julius earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from DePaul University, a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, and a Master of Studies in international human rights law in 2021 from the University of Oxford. From 2022 to 2024, he served as Foreign Section Chief, Office of Chief Counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). In 2022, he served as a senior attorney, Diversion and Regulatory Policy Section, DEA, DOJ. From 2008 to 2022, he served as assistant director, senior litigation counsel, and trial attorney at the Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, DOJ. During this time, from 2020 to 2021, he served as Acting Deputy Associate General Counsel detailed to the Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; and, from 2013 to 2014, he served as a trial attorney detailed to the Fraud Section, Civil Division, DOJ. From 2006 to 2008, he served as a judicial law clerk to the Boston, Hartford, Las Vegas, and Florence Immigration Courts, entering through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Julius is a member of the New York State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Julius were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025. During this period, court records show that Judge Julius decided 150 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 19, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 130. Converted to percentage terms, Julius denied 86.7 percent and granted 13.4 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Julius'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 Julius's denial rate of 86.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 58.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Charlotte Immigration Court where Judge Julius decided these cases denied asylum 85.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Julius'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 Julius, 2.7% 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 Julius came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 30.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Julius were: Mexico (15.3%), Brazil (10.7%), Colombia (7.3%), Guatemala (6.7%). 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%).