Judge Diana Callaghan

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

*data covers the first 9 months of fiscal year 2026

Published Aug 27, 2026

Diana L. Callaghan was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in March 2026. Judge Callaghan earned a Bachelor of Science in Law in 1985 from Western State University College of Law, a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Western State University College of Law, a Master of Laws in Taxation in 2004 from Golden Gate University School of Law, a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences, Political Science, in 2009 from San Diego State University, and a Master of Public Administration in 2010 from California State University Long Beach. From September 2005 to September 2024, she served as a supervising deputy attorney general at the California Attorney General’s Office and was awarded three of the prestigious Attorney General’s awards for excellence in prosecution. From March 2004 to September 2005, she served as an associate attorney for the law firm of Rice and Keely LLC, in Torrance, California. From March 1988 to March 2004, she served as a deputy district attorney with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. Judge Callaghan is a member of the State Bar of California, the Roll of Solicitors for England and Wales, and the Roll of Solicitors for the Republic of Ireland. Judge Callaghan is also a member of the Bar of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Callaghan were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2021 through the first 9 months of 2026. During this period, court records show that Judge Callaghan decided 108 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 2, granted 4 other types of relief, and denied relief to 102. Converted to percentage terms, Callaghan denied 94.4 percent and granted 5.6 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Callaghan'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 Callaghan's denial rate of 94.4 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 Callaghan decided these cases denied asylum 61.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Callaghan'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 Callaghan, 8.3% 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 Callaghan came from Guatemala. Individuals from this country made up 21.3% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Callaghan were: Nicaragua (14.8%), El Salvador (13.9%), Mexico (9.3%), Colombia (8.3%). 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 (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%).