Judge Anthony Hurst

FY 2021 - 2026*, Cleveland Immigration Court

*data covers the first 9 months of fiscal year 2026

Published Aug 27, 2026

Anthony J. Hurst was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in April 2026. Judge Hurst earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2013 from Xavier University and a Juris Doctor in 2016 from Cleveland State University College of Law. From April 2019 to March 2026, he was with the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court in Clevland serving in the following roles: magistrate (May 2021-March 2026); and staff attorney (April 2019- February 2023). From October 2020 to February 2023, he served as an assistant prosecuting attorney with the Adams County Prosecutor’s Office in West Union, Ohio. From October 2017 to March 2019, he served as an assistant prosecuting attorney with the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office. From May 2014 to October 2017, he was with the Geauga County Probate/Juvenile Court in Chardon, Ohio, serving in the following roles: staff attorney (May 2017-October 2017); and law clerk (May 2014-May 2017). Judge Hurst is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Hurst were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2021 through the first 9 months of 2026. During this period, court records show that Judge Hurst decided 138 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 0, granted 0 other types of relief, and denied relief to 138. Converted to percentage terms, Hurst denied 100.0 percent and granted 0.0 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Hurst'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 Hurst's denial rate of 100.0 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 62.9 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Cleveland Immigration Court where Judge Hurst decided these cases denied asylum 79.2 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Hurst'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 Hurst, 18.1% 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 Hurst came from Honduras. Individuals from this country made up 18.1% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Hurst were: Brazil (16.7%), Colombia (12.3%), Guatemala (8.0%), Nicaragua (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 (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%).