Judge Patrick E. Moore

FY 2021 - 2026*, Baton Rouge Immigration Court

*data covers the first 9 months of fiscal year 2026

Published Aug 27, 2026

Patrick E. Moore was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in March 2026. Judge Moore earned a Bachelor of Arts and Sciences in History in 1986 from Tulane University and a Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of Mississippi School of Law. From June 2025 to February 2026, he was an assistant attorney general for the Louisiana Department of Justice in New Orleans. From June 2016 to June 2025, he served as a central panel administrative law judge for the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law. Judge Moore was previously in private practice for over 20 years. During that time and in addition to his regular law practice, he served as the mayor’s court magistrate for the City of Covington (2002-2010) and as a hearing officer for the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (1997-2002). Judge Moore is a member of the Louisiana State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Moore were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2021 through the first 9 months of 2026. During this period, court records show that Judge Moore decided 148 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 2, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 145. Converted to percentage terms, Moore denied 98.0 percent and granted 2.1 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Moore'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 Moore's denial rate of 98.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 62.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Baton Rouge Immigration Court where Judge Moore decided these cases denied asylum 97.3 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Moore'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 Moore, 12.2% 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 Moore came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 41.2% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Moore were: Mexico (23.6%), Guatemala (12.2%), El Salvador (6.8%), Senegal (4.7%). 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 (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%).