The Honorable Judge Alberto J. Riefkohl is known as one of the nation’s preeminent scholars in immigration law and removal litigation. Judge Riefkohl’s distinguished career dates to 1975 when he served as the General Attorney in the Litigation Division of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. For nearly two decades, Judge Riefkohl served individuals, families, employers, and global organization in handling the most complex of matters. In March of 1995, then-Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Judge Riefkohl to serve as one of a few federal immigration judges in the United States. Over thirty years as an immigration judge sitting at the Immigration Court in Newark, New Jersey, Judge Riefkohl decided tens of thousands of matters – with so many of Judge Riefhohl’s decisions affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Riefkohl was born in Puerto Rico, where he would begin a lifelong commitment to legal service and public adjudication. He pursued higher education at the University of Puerto Rico, earning both his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1968 and later his Juris Doctor (J.D.) in 1974, laying the intellectual groundwork for a distinguished legal career. 

Concurrently with his academic pursuits, Riefkohl served in the U.S. Air Force (Air National Guard) from 1968 to 1974, demonstrating early dedication to public service and discipline in both military and civilian spheres. 

Judge Riefkohl developed a reputation for thorough and careful adjudication throughout his tenure. According to immigration court case reporting data:

• Fiscal years 2020–2025 (first 11 months): He decided 485 asylum claims on the merits and granted asylum or other forms of relief in approximately 88% of cases, with a comparatively low denial rate (~12%). These figures are notably below national averages, suggesting a more favorable asylum grant rate compared to his colleagues and the national landscape.

His decisions have been part of appellate review proceedings, including cases heard by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third Circuit, indicating that his judicial rulings have contributed to significant immigration law jurisprudence over time. 

Additionally, in earlier years Judge Riefkohl was recorded as issuing rulings that drew attention in public discourse — for example, issuing a continuance in a deportation matter involving a same-sex couple during early years of evolving federal immigration policy on such unions. 

Given Judge Riefkohl’s appointment in 1995, his career on the bench spanned approximately 30 years — a notably long tenure in federal immigration adjudication. 

During his service, Riefkohl became known for a relatively high rate of asylum grants and extensive experience with complex immigration issues, contributing to the broader body of immigration law practice and jurisprudence in the U.S. administrative court system.

Judge Riefkohl’s career reflects a blend of legal, military, and judicial service. From his early work in government litigation and private practice to his decades as an immigration judge, he influenced countless immigration adjudications, shaping the life outcomes of many applicants and contributing to legal interpretations impacting asylum seekers and other noncitizens.

Judge Riefkolf changed the immigration law landscape while on the bench and his work has been reviewed by immigration scholars, academics, and, many times, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The following are a small number of decisions that led to great changes to immigration law today:

1) Qatanani v. Attorney General (3d Cir., 2025)

This is a precedential Third Circuit decision addressing the BIA’s authority and procedural limits when it tried to undo an adjustment to lawful permanent resident status after a long procedural history. The opinion explains that the IJ had made favorable findings and granted adjustment (2008 and again in 2020), and the case became a major vehicle for examining finality, due process, and agency authority.

2) Liem v. Attorney General (3d Cir., 2019)

Another precedential Third Circuit decision emphasizing that—even though motions to reopen are disfavored—the BIA must meaningfully consider the evidence and arguments presented and explain its reasoning. The court granted the petition, vacated the BIA decision, and remanded.

3) Bordamonte v. Attorney General (3d Cir., 2016)

The case squarely addressed derivative citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a) (repealed), focusing on what qualifies as a “legal separation” of parents for a child to automatically acquire citizenship. The Third Circuit denied the petition, concluding the facts did not satisfy the “legal separation” requirement as interpreted.

4) Singh v. Attorney General (3d Cir., 2024)

This case involved post-order litigation (motions to reopen/reconsider). The opinion describes an IJ credibility finding and later challenges including arguments tied to notice-to-appear defects and jurisdiction theories that have been widely litigated in recent years.