Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT

CHICAGO IL

42%

Asylum grant rate

of 35,363 decisions · FY1969–FY2026

95% interval: 41%42%

granted:
14,757
denied:
20,606
How this percentage is calculated
Grant rate = granted / (granted + denied). Administrative closures, withdrawals, abandonment and "not adjudicated" are excluded from the denominator. The unit of count is a decision per proceeding, not per application: applicants almost always file asylum, withholding and CAT protection together. Withholding and CAT grants are counted separately from asylum. U.S. fiscal year: October 1 – September 30.

How this compares

  • CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT42% (35,363)
  • All U.S. courts33% (1,350,724)

This comparison does not adjust for which cases a judge was given: judges see different nationalities, different shares of detained respondents, and different rates of legal representation. A difference in percentages does not by itself mean identical cases were treated differently.

Trend by fiscal year

0%25%50%75%100%198419942002201020182026

U.S. fiscal year: October 1 – September 30.

FY2026 is incomplete: the release covers only 10 of its 12 months. Its point is drawn hollow and the segment leading to it is dashed.

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (3): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY2026partial4,38915%14%16%
FY20253,69836%35%38%
FY20242,87361%59%62%
FY20232,31561%59%63%
FY20221,27162%59%64%
FY202191546%43%49%
FY20201,82039%37%41%
FY20191,64353%51%56%
FY201886849%46%53%
FY201767852%49%56%
FY201627840%35%46%
FY201529246%40%51%
FY201436845%40%50%
FY201351939%35%44%
FY201252551%47%55%
FY201151345%41%50%
FY201035351%46%56%
FY200948054%49%58%
FY200850455%51%60%
FY200758059%55%63%
FY200658263%59%67%
FY200562247%43%51%
FY200461937%33%41%
FY200376236%32%39%
FY200271736%33%40%
FY200168643%39%46%
FY200070351%48%55%
FY199963534%30%38%
FY199864348%44%52%
FY199751446%41%50%
FY199653138%34%42%
FY199549524%20%28%
FY199441821%17%25%
FY199326520%16%26%
FY199217521%16%28%
FY199122319%15%25%
FY199039317%13%21%
FY198926325%21%31%
FY198831241%36%47%
FY198751435%31%40%
FY198628315%11%20%
FY19851033%1%8%
FY1984157%1%30%
FY1983617%3%56%
FY198210%0%79%
FY197310%0%79%

How long a case takes

From service of the NTA to the decision on the application, across all judges of this court.

26 mo

median

half of cases: 13—44 mo

based on 35,363 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY20264,38935 mo2845
FY20253,69830 mo2241
FY20242,87328 mo1953
FY20232,31546 mo2359
FY20221,27146 mo3572
FY202191542 mo2271
FY20201,82017 mo1352
FY20191,64318 mo447
FY201886827 mo745
FY201767817 mo638

Duration runs from the NTA date (charging document served) to the decision on the application. Median, not mean: the distribution has a long right tail. Cases decided this year may have begun a decade ago, so duration by year of decision is not a forecast for a case filed today.

The queue

Cases at this court with no decision yet.

204,539
cases waiting
32 mo
already waited, median
  • Half have waited between 24 mo and 39 mo.
  • 186,323 (91%) have a hearing scheduled later than the date this data was collected. The rest have no upcoming event in the release.

The queue counts proceedings with no decision in the release. The figure runs from the NTA date to the release cutoff — it is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will. Shown separately: how many have a hearing scheduled after the cutoff. The rest have no upcoming event in the release and should not be read alongside live cases.

Judges of this court

Showing judges with at least 50 asylum decisions at this court.

0%25%50%75%100%Vinikoor, Robert D.: 30%, n=3890Zerbe, Craig M.: 41%, n=3112Fujimoto, James R.: 29%, n=2895Klein, Eliza: 43%, n=2595Cuevas, Carlos: 49%, n=2199Brahos, O. John: 29%, n=2159Defoe, Craig A.: 29%, n=1629Mckenna, Patrick M.: 37%, n=1514Stahl, Marc: 49%, n=1460Giambastiani, Jennie L.: 52%, n=1397De Angelis, Kathryn L.: 48%, n=1269Klosowsky, Michael: 29%, n=1241Petrone, Anthony D., JR.: 20%, n=1171Naseem, Samia: 47%, n=1120Freeman, D'Anna H.: 17%, n=1050Perez-Guzman, Virginia: 43%, n=1018Eller, Donald R., JR.: 13%, n=980Diaz, Irma: 10%, n=932Saltzman, Eva S.: 57%, n=930Patti, Sebastian T.: 55%, n=917Reynolds, Gina: 61%, n=897Rosche, Robin J.: 54%, n=809Mencini, Ana: 30%, n=793Ellison, Sarah M.: 27%, n=780Salovaara, Kaarina: 40%, n=749Crites, Elizabeth: 50%, n=747Luskin, Joshua D.: 44%, n=740Curran, Brendan C.: 26%, n=712Kim, Peter A.: 47%, n=661Venci, Michelle: 27%, n=639Cole, Samuel B.: 47%, n=629Peyton, Jennifer I.: 79%, n=540Treacy, Elizabeth: 51%, n=515Dimarzio, Philip L.: 26%, n=405Barilla, Jody: 45%, n=377Pullen, Thomas L.: 22%, n=343Bower, Glen L.: 85%, n=332Mcnulty, Sheila: 57%, n=301Espinoza, Carla: 57%, n=269DRK: 38%, n=258Der-Yeghiayan, Samuel: 31%, n=258Fluhr, Philip: 43%, n=240GGD: 39%, n=196Beese, Matthew C.: 7%, n=189Nelson, Kristi: 40%, n=181Yokoyama, Lori: 11%, n=130Baldini-Potermin, Maria: 54%, n=91Abraham, Shawn J.: 0%, n=83Katsivalis, George P.: 11%, n=6610030010003000Decisions

Horizontally, how many decisions a judge issued; vertically, their grant rate. The band shows how much spread is explained by sample size alone.

Inside the band: the difference is not supported by a sample of that size.

Outside the band: the difference is larger than chance explains.

Hearing cases now — 31

U.S. immigration judges: volume and asylum grant rate
JudgeDecisionsGranted95% interval
Defoe, Craig A.1,62929%27%31%
Mckenna, Patrick M.1,51437%34%39%
Stahl, Marc1,46049%46%51%
Klosowsky, Michael1,24129%27%32%
Naseem, Samia1,12047%44%50%
Freeman, D'Anna H.1,05017%15%20%
Eller, Donald R., JR.98013%11%15%
Diaz, Irma93210%8%12%
Saltzman, Eva S.93057%54%61%
Patti, Sebastian T.91755%52%58%
Reynolds, Gina89761%58%64%
Rosche, Robin J.80954%50%57%
Mencini, Ana79330%27%33%
Salovaara, Kaarina74940%37%44%
Crites, Elizabeth74750%47%54%
Luskin, Joshua D.74044%40%47%
Curran, Brendan C.71226%23%30%
Kim, Peter A.66147%43%51%
Venci, Michelle63927%24%30%
Cole, Samuel B.62947%43%51%
Peyton, Jennifer I.nothing scheduled54079%75%82%
Treacy, Elizabeth51551%47%55%
Barilla, Jody37745%40%50%
Mcnulty, Sheilanothing scheduled30157%51%63%
Espinoza, Carla26957%51%63%
Fluhr, Philip24043%37%50%
Beese, Matthew C.1897%4%12%
Nelson, Kristi18140%33%48%
Yokoyama, Lori13011%7%17%
Baldini-Potermin, Maria9154%44%64%
Abraham, Shawn J.830%0%4%

Moved to another court — 3

These judges heard cases here; their hearings are now scheduled in another city. A case reaches such a judge only if it follows them.

U.S. immigration judges: volume and asylum grant rate
JudgeCourtDecisionsGranted95% interval
De Angelis, Kathryn L.ELOY — IMMIGRATION COURT1,26948%45%51%
Perez-Guzman, VirginiaDALLAS — IMMIGRATION COURT1,01843%40%46%
Ellison, Sarah M.DALLAS — IMMIGRATION COURT78027%24%30%

Worked here before — 15

They have no hearings scheduled anywhere after the release cutoff. Their rates remain in the court's statistics — the decisions were made — but for someone holding a notice they are no longer about their case.

U.S. immigration judges: volume and asylum grant rate
JudgeDecisionsGranted95% interval
Vinikoor, Robert D.not hearing cases3,89030%28%31%
Zerbe, Craig M.not hearing cases3,11241%39%42%
Fujimoto, James R.not hearing cases2,89529%27%31%
Klein, Elizanot hearing cases2,59543%42%45%
Cuevas, Carlosnot hearing cases2,19949%47%51%
Brahos, O. Johnnot hearing cases2,15929%27%31%
Giambastiani, Jennie L.not hearing cases1,39752%49%54%
Petrone, Anthony D., JR.not hearing cases1,17120%18%22%
Dimarzio, Philip L.not hearing cases40526%22%30%
Pullen, Thomas L.not hearing cases34322%18%27%
Bower, Glen L.not hearing cases33285%81%88%
Code DRK, name missing from the lookup tablenot hearing cases25838%32%44%
Der-Yeghiayan, Samuelnot hearing cases25831%26%37%
Code GGD, name missing from the lookup tablenot hearing cases19639%33%46%
Katsivalis, George P.not hearing cases6611%5%20%

Status is derived from the court calendar: whether the judge has hearings scheduled after the release cutoff. The EOIR release carries no personnel data, so retirement, removal, elevation to the BIA and extended absence cannot be told apart — only what the data shows is stated here. Hearings are scheduled two to three years out, so an empty calendar for a working judge is rare; for judges who went quiet in the last few months it may still be an artifact of the cutoff, which lags by about a month. The lookup table's "active" flag is not used: it disagrees with the calendar for a third of judges.

Data comes from the monthly EOIR Case Data release (U.S. DOJ FOIA Library). This service is not affiliated with the U.S. government and does not provide legal advice. The data lags by roughly a month; for current case status use ACIS and Respondent Access. The source is known to have missing records, including relief applications — absent data does not mean it is absent from your case.