Judge Thanos Kanellakos

FY 2018 - 2023, Hyattsville Immigration Court

Published Oct 19, 2023

Thanos Kanellakos was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin bearing cases in October 2021. Judge Kanellakos earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1985 from Loyola College of Maryland and a Juris Doctor in 1989 from the University of Baltimore School of Law. From 2004 to 2021, he was in solo practice in York, Pennsylvania, concentrating in immigration and nationality law. From 1990 to 2003, he was in solo practice in Baltimore, concentrating in immigration and nationality law and criminal defense. From 1992 to 2003, he was a Panel Attorney of the Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Criminal Justice Act Defense Panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. From 1990 to 1992, he served as an Assistant Part-Time Attorney for the Office of the Public Defender for Baltimore County, Maryland. Judge Kanellakos is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Deciding Asylum Cases

Detailed data on decisions by Judge Kanellakos were examined for the period covering fiscal years 2018 through 2023. During this period, court records show that Judge Kanellakos decided 122 asylum claims on their merits. Of these, he granted asylum for 56, granted 1 other types of relief, and denied relief to 65. Converted to percentage terms, Kanellakos denied 53.3 percent and granted 46.7 percent of asylum cases (including forms of relief other than asylum).

Figure 1 provides a comparison of Judge Kanellakos'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 Kanellakos's denial rate of 53.3 percent, Immigration Court judges across the country denied 60.6 percent of asylum claims during this same period. Judges at the Hyattsville Immigration Court where Judge Kanellakos decided these cases denied asylum 28.7 percent of the time. See Figure 2.

Judge Kanellakos'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 (80%) are denied asylum. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of represented asylum seekers are successful. In the case of Judge Kanellakos, 0% were not represented by an attorney. See Figure 3. For the nation as a whole, about 15.7% 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 Kanellakos came from El Salvador. Individuals from this country made up 36.1% of his caseload. Other nationalities in descending order of frequency appearing before Judge Kanellakos were: Cameroon (23.8%), Guatemala (6.6%), Bangladesh (4.9%), Ethiopia (4.9%). See Figure 4.

In the nation as a whole during this same period, major nationalities of asylum seekers, in descending order of frequency, were El Salvador (16.6%), Guatemala (15.1%), Honduras (13.8%), Mexico (9.2%), China (6.8%), India (5.1%), Venezuela (3.2%), Ecuador (3.1%), Cuba (2.4%), Nicaragua (2.3%), Brazil (2.0%), Colombia (1.4%), Cameroon (1.4%).