Immigration judges inside the Charlotte immigration court in North Carolina have ordered deportations in up to 97.1% of their cases during fiscal year 2026, while registering zero or near-zero asylum approvals, according to figures compiled by Mobile Pathways’ Asylum Navigator and reported by La Noticia. The nationwide trend reflects a strained federal immigration system grappling with over three million pending requests.
Inside the Charlotte Immigration Court Bench
The immigration court in North Carolina currently operates with seven judges, three of whom handle cases through virtual hearings, alongside judges who manage detained immigrants and specialized dockets. During fiscal year 2026, the national deportation order rate stood at 75.9%. By contrast, the Charlotte court recorded an 88.3% deportation rate, meaning roughly nine out of every ten cases concluded with a removal order.
Recent judicial appointments make up a significant portion of the active bench. Amy Sigmon Walker, assigned to this court since May 2026, leads the court with a 97.1% deportation order rate and zero asylum approvals through September. Scott Criss, serving in Charlotte since 2017 after working as an attorney for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), recorded a 93.1% deportation rate in fiscal year 2026, up from 79.7% the previous year, with his asylum approval rate dropping from 0.6% to 0%. Jennifer S. Wells, named to the bench in May 2026, presents a 91.7% deportation rate and no asylum approvals.
Christopher W. Bragg joined the court this year following a trajectory of more than three decades in the North Carolina judicial system. Records from Mobile Pathways’ Asylum Navigator covering June and July 2026 show that Bragg ordered deportations in nine out of ten cases during those months, alongside zero asylum approvals.
Veteran Judges and Shifting Approval Rates
Long-serving judges on the Charlotte bench show similar upward trajectories in removal orders. Theresa Holmes-Simmons, an immigration judge since 1998 and assistant chief judge in Charlotte, maintains an 89.5% deportation order rate and a 0.4% asylum approval rate, down from nearly 2% the prior year. Amy T. Lee, appointed in April 2013, posted an 89.5% deportation rate in 2026, compared to 77.7% the previous fiscal year, while her asylum approvals shifted from 0.6% to 0%. Alicia D. Brooks, appointed in December 2021, ordered deportations in eight out of ten cases this year, with an asylum approval rate of 2%.
| Immigration Judge | Appointment Date | Deportation Order Rate | Asylum Approval Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amy Sigmon Walker | May 2026 | 97.1% | 0% |
| Scott Criss | 2017 | 93.1% | 0% |
| Jennifer S. Wells | May 2026 | 91.7% | 0% |
| Christopher W. Bragg | 2026 | 9 out of 10 cases | 0% |
| Theresa Holmes-Simmons | 1998 | 89.5% | 0.4% |
| Amy T. Lee | April 2013 | 89.5% | 0% |
| Alicia D. Brooks | December 2021 | 8 out of 10 cases | 2% |
These figures illustrate a broader tribunal pattern rather than a uniform outcome for every individual docket.
Absences and Legal Strategy Amid Policy Shifts
Immigration attorneys point to compounding pressures behind the rising removal metrics. In the past year, 19,799 immigrants failed to attend their scheduled hearings. This corresponds to more than seven out of ten hearings.
Immigration lawyer Andrés López noted that mounting denial rates stem from directives originating at the leadership level of the immigration system. “The denial rates have gone up nationwide. This is something that begins with those who direct the system and each week decisions are published on how judges should decide cases, so that they are in a certain way, but never against the government,” López told La Noticia.
Faced with these hurdles, legal practitioners emphasize building robust evidentiary records and preserving arguments for higher review. “Unfortunately, it is a reality that the denial rates are high and, as a lawyer, my job is to deliver all possible evidence and preserve arguments for possible appeals. The prevailing strategy among counsel involves appealing adverse decisions to the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
