For many asylum seekers, the vision of settling in California is becoming increasingly uncertain.

The outcome of their stay in the United States often hinges on which judge handles their case—a decision that can vary significantly between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Judges in San Francisco, known for their more liberal stance, denied only 28.5% of asylum cases from 2020 to late 2025. In contrast, judges in Los Angeles matched the national average, rejecting nearly 60% of applications, according to figures from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

In the last quarter, nearly 80% of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. were turned away, as immigration judges have adopted a stricter approach during the Trump administration.

“It’s having a real impact,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Policy and a former immigration judge.

“The Trump Administration is implementing various strategies to reduce the rate of asylum approvals,” he added.

Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas, who was appointed during the Obama administration in November 2009, had the highest denial rates in California across two court locations — Los Angeles-North and Van Nuys — where she handled a combined 525 cases and issued denials in roughly 91.6% of them, according to TRAC data.

Almost 30% of Naselow-Nahas’ cases involved people from El-Salvador.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Judge Kevin W. Riley, who was part of the same class of new judges as Naselow-Nahas, also ranked highest among California judges in denying asylum between 2020 and late 2025.

Riley has served in three court jurisdictions across Southern California over the last five years, denying more than 99% of asylum seekers in 350 cases in north Los Angeles and Adelanto federal courthouses, according to TRAC data.

That denial rate dropped during Riley’s time in Van Nuys, but his overall rejection rate was still about 88%.

Katie G. Mullins, who was appointed to the bench in 2023 and oversaw 205 cases in Adelanto Immigration Court, denied asylum in 94.6% of her decisions, according to TRAC data.

Meanwhile, Shira M. Levine, who was appointed to San Francisco’s federal immigration bench in 2021 during the Biden administration, was the state’s most lenient judge in granting asylum, denying just 2.1% of the 1,165 cases she oversaw — up until the Trump administration fired her in September.

President Trump has been on a rampage in removing immigration judges perceived as too far to the left. San Francisco’s immigration court lost 12 of its 21 judges just last year.

An accompanying spike in deportations has occurred during that same time.

In December, 38,215 illegal migrants were given the boot, 50% above the 19,265 in December 2023 under President Joe Biden and 35% more than the 24,979 cases in December 2024, according to TRAC.

Judge Frank Seminerio, in San Francisco, heard the most immigration cases of any judge in California over the last five years, denying 65.6% of asylum seekers, according to TRAC data.

His denial rate was far lower than that of former colleague Nathan Aina, a judge who reportedly had the nickname “quiet assassin” among San Francisco lawyers for rejecting almost all asylum claims. TRAC data shows Aina denied 94.2% of the cases he heard in San Francisco.

KSL NewsRadio reported last July that Aina accepted a federal workers’ buyout offered by the Trump administration.

California immigration courts make asylum decisions involving applicants from all over the world, including China and Latin American countries like Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

The wide differential in how asylum seekers in California are granted, given other avenues of relief, or denied mirrors a similar trend in New York.

“It’s a mighty big gap” between judges, said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Policy and a former immigration judge.

“Maybe one judge just gets very meritorious cases, and maybe one judge gets non-meritorious cases. But it is a significant issue.”

The federal government can intervene to appeal a judge’s ruling to grant asylum.

“I’m glad that immigration judges are the first adjudicators,” Arthur said, “not the last adjudicators.”