Judge Yvan Eugene Murad

FY 2021 - 2026*, Los Angeles - Wla Immigration Court

*data covers the first 9 months of fiscal year 2026

Published Aug 27, 2026

Yvan Eugene Murad was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in November 2024. Judge Murad earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from Radford University and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law. From 2023 to 2024, he served as an assistant chief counsel with the Office of the Principal Legal Adviser, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York City. From 2007 to 2023, he was a partner with the firm Murad and Murad PC in Boulder, Colorado, where he represented noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. From 2006 to 2007, he practiced immigration law with the Mountain States Employers Council in Denver. From 2002 to 2005, he was an associate practicing immigration law with the Law Office of Nancy M. Lawrence in Vienna, Virginia. Judge Murad is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Murad were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2021 through the first 9 months of 2026. During this period, court records show that Judge Murad decided 287 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 58, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 225. Converted to percentage terms, Murad denied 78.4 percent and granted 21.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Murad'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 Murad's denial rate of 78.4 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 62.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Los Angeles - Wla Immigration Court where Judge Murad decided these cases denied asylum 61.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Murad'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 (74%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Murad, 3.5% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 18.8% 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 Murad came from Nicaragua. Individuals from this country made up 19.2% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Murad were: Guatemala (15.7%), El Salvador (15.3%), Honduras (8.7%), Russia (8.4%). 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 (10.1%), Guatemala (9.4%), Mexico (9.1%), El Salvador (8.7%), Venezuela (6.8%), Colombia (5.6%), Ecuador (5.3%), Nicaragua (4.8%), India (4.7%), China (4.7%), Russia (3.3%), Brazil (3.2%), Peru (2.9%).