Judge James C Graulich, III

FY 2020 - 2025*, Charlotte Immigration Court

*data covers the first 11 months of fiscal year 2025

Published Nov 7, 2025

James C. Graulich III was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in November 2024. Judge Graulich earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from the University of North Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from the Stetson University College of Law. From 2020 to 2024, he served as a trial attorney at the Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section, Department of Justice, where he handled federal district court cases and appellate cases originating from district courts involving challenges of immigration policies and complex immigration issues. From 2016 to 2020, he served as an assistant chief counsel with the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Louisville, Kentucky, and at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia. From 2015 to 2016, he served as a judge advocate with the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky, and Las Vegas. From 2014 to 2015, he served as an assistant attorney general at the Florida Office of the Attorney General in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. From 2013 to 2014, he was a staff attorney for Coast-to-Coast Legal Aid of South Florida in Plantation, Florida. From 2010 to 2013, he was an associate attorney for the Kastelz Law Group in Jacksonville, Florida. Since 2012, Judge Graulich has served in the U.S. Army Reserves. Judge Graulich is a member of the Florida Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Graulich were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2020 through the first 11 months of 2025. During this period, court records show that Judge Graulich decided 207 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 19, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 188. Converted to percentage terms, Graulich denied 90.8 percent and granted 9.2 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Graulich'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 Graulich's denial rate of 90.8 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 Graulich decided these cases denied asylum 85.8 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Graulich'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 Graulich, 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 Graulich came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 37.7% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Graulich were: Mexico (22.2%), Venezuela (9.2%), Colombia (8.7%), El Salvador (7.2%). 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%).