Jonathan Huang
Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court. Appointed December 2021.
Asylum record, FY 2021-2026
TRAC source →- Decisions on the merits
- 888
- Asylum granted
- 107
- Other relief granted
- 30
- Denied
- 751
- Against own court
- +8.1 pts
| FY23 | FY24 | FY25 | FY26 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 43% | 52% | 87% | 99% |
Docket
Respondents represented by counsel: 88% (nationally, 81% are represented).
Most common nationalities: Mexico (25.3%), Nicaragua (13.5%), Colombia (12.2%), Guatemala (11.3%), China (6.1%).
Official biography
Jonathan C. Huang was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in December 2021. Judge Huang ear ned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor in 2004 from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. In 2021, he served as an Administrative Law Judge with the Inland Office of Appeals, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, in Rancho Cucamonga. From 2018 to 2021, he served as an Administrative Law Judge – Specialist, Los Angeles Regional Office (LARO), State Hearings Division (SHD), California Department of Social Services (CDSS). From 2014 to 2018, he served as an Administrative Law Judge, LARO, SHD, CDSS. From 2010 to 2014, he served as a Deputy Commissioner for the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), in Los Angeles. During that time, in 2011, he served as an Acting Associate Chief Deputy Commissioner, Region III, BPH, in Los Angeles. In 2009, he served as a Deputy Commissioner for the California BPH, in Wasco. From 2005 to 2009, he was a Panel Attorney with the California Parole Advocacy Program, in Chino. From 2004 to 2009, he was in private practice, in Santa Ana and West Covina, California. Judge Huang is a member of the State Bar of California.
In the record
No published reporting or appellate decisions naming this judge have been collected yet.
Other judges at Santa Ana
Court page →About these figures. Denial rates describe outcomes in the cases a judge happened to hear, which differ by detention, nationality and representation. They are not a measure of fairness or competence. Method and sources are on the judges index.