Judge Kiera Parikh

FY 2021 - 2026*, Houston Immigration Court

*data covers the first 9 months of fiscal year 2026

Published Aug 27, 2026

Kiera Parikh was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in March 2026. Judge Parikh earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2001 from Columbia University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from the University of Houston. From 2015 to 2026, she served as an associate division counsel with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the Houston Division. From 2009 to 2015, she served as an assistant general counsel with the FBI Office of General Counsel, National Security Law Branch in Washington, D.C. In 2008, she served as a special assistant U.S. attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Judge Parikh is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Parikh were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2021 through the first 9 months of 2026. During this period, court records show that Judge Parikh decided 152 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, she granted asylum for 0, granted 2 other types of relief, and denied relief to 150. Converted to percentage terms, Parikh denied 98.7 percent and granted 1.3 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Parikh'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 Parikh's denial rate of 98.7 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 62.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Houston Immigration Court where Judge Parikh decided these cases denied asylum 86.1 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Parikh'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 Parikh, 44.7% 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 Parikh came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 16.4% of her caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Parikh were: Mexico (16.4%), Venezuela (16.4%), El Salvador (13.8%), Guatemala (9.2%). 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 (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%).