Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data
← All courts

NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT

NEW YORK NY

57%

Asylum grant rate

of 230,016 decisions · FY1958–FY2026

95% interval: 57% — 57%

granted:
130,764
denied:
99,252
other protection: withholding and the Convention Against Torture:
14

Withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture let a person stay, but grant no refugee status and no path to a green card. They are therefore excluded from the asylum grant rate and shown as a separate figure.

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

  • NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT57% (230,016)
  • 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 (5): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY2026partial11,7468%7% — 8%
FY20256,20152%50% — 53%
FY20246,19979%78% — 80%
FY20236,84882%81% — 83%
FY20226,47880%79% — 81%
FY20211,30076%74% — 78%
FY20205,98649%48% — 50%
FY201910,30757%56% — 58%
FY20187,70367%66% — 68%
FY20175,22979%78% — 80%
FY20165,23985%83% — 85%
FY20155,68584%83% — 84%
FY20146,22683%82% — 84%
FY20137,02383%82% — 84%
FY20127,53882%81% — 83%
FY20116,84377%76% — 78%
FY20105,57576%75% — 77%
FY20095,61573%72% — 74%
FY20086,24271%70% — 72%
FY20077,36276%75% — 77%
FY20067,37871%70% — 72%
FY20057,18962%61% — 63%
FY20047,73662%61% — 63%
FY20039,09153%52% — 54%
FY20027,97348%47% — 49%
FY20016,86148%47% — 49%
FY20006,98647%46% — 49%
FY19997,60642%41% — 43%
FY19986,86535%34% — 37%
FY19976,56529%28% — 30%
FY19967,40516%15% — 17%
FY19955,80613%12% — 14%
FY19943,06012%11% — 13%
FY19931,90629%27% — 31%
FY19921,49941%38% — 43%
FY199191632%29% — 36%
FY19901,08518%15% — 20%
FY198953819%16% — 23%
FY198880123%20% — 26%
FY198786320%17% — 22%
FY19864178%5% — 11%
FY1985852%1% — 8%
FY1984260%0% — 13%
FY1983250%9% — 91%
FY1982922%6% — 55%
FY198110%0% — 79%
FY19801100%21% — 100%
FY197410%0% — 79%

How long a case takes

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

25 mo

median

half of cases: 14—43 mo

based on 230,024 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY202611,74632 mo25—46
FY20256,20137 mo23—81
FY20246,19962 mo24—80
FY20236,84860 mo48—78
FY20226,47848 mo39—69
FY20211,30046 mo34—68
FY20205,98637 mo16—52
FY201910,31039 mo27—56
FY20187,70243 mo30—55
FY20175,23141 mo30—52

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.

233,746
cases waiting
34 mo
already waited, median
  • Half have waited between 27 mo and 47 mo.
  • 167,110 (71%) 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%Rohan, Patricia A.: 56%, n=8855Morace, Philip L.: 63%, n=8261Mcmanus, Margaret: 76%, n=8067Laforest, Brigitte: 76%, n=7785Bain, Terry A.: 88%, n=7575Nelson, Barbara A.: 33%, n=7366Chew, George T.: 71%, n=7113Schoppert, Douglas B.: 74%, n=6839Weisel, Robert D.: 49%, n=6455Brennan, Noel A.: 87%, n=6142Lamb, Elizabeth A.: 77%, n=6056Hom, Sandy: 23%, n=5860Sichel, Helen: 72%, n=5649Elstein, Annette S.: 53%, n=5618Gordon-Uruakpa, Vivienne E.: 83%, n=5593Burr, Sarah M.: 54%, n=4604Christensen, Jesse B.: 40%, n=4503Bukszpan, Joanna M.: 65%, n=4492Balasquide, Javier E.: 48%, n=4344Wyke, William Van: 78%, n=4130Iskra, Wayne: 36%, n=4050Defonzo, Paul: 43%, n=3823Holmes-Simmons, Theresa: 58%, n=3765Poczter, Aviva L.: 55%, n=3648Hladylowycz, Roxanne C.: 32%, n=3227Wright, Virna A.: 59%, n=3204Mulligan, Thomas J.: 75%, n=3198Ferris, Noel A.: 37%, n=2986Zagzoug, Randa: 78%, n=2976Segal, Alice: 76%, n=2899Chase, Jeffrey S.: 35%, n=2901Tadal, Mirlande: 27%, n=2878Leeds, Frederic G.: 77%, n=2818Loprest, F. James, JR.: 67%, n=2804Thompson, Donald W., JR.: 60%, n=2546Little, Anna C.: 61%, n=2340Jankun, William F.: 4%, n=2334Harbeck, Dorothy A.: 50%, n=2238Speer, John K.: 21%, n=2182Douchy, Evalyn P.: 73%, n=2082Mccarthy, James M.: 37%, n=2024Klahr, Deborah E.: 37%, n=1823Sponzo, Jem C.: 63%, n=1803Cassin, Olivia L.: 83%, n=1727Mcfarland, Michael G.: 55%, n=1724Burns, John: 2%, n=1713Sagesse, Cathy: 41%, n=1680Peal, Tiesha: 14%, n=1664Tsankov, Mimi: 59%, n=1635Lurye, Maria: 77%, n=1594Palmer, Brian T.: 20%, n=1588Hom, Howard C.: 26%, n=1587Kolbe, Margaret: 61%, n=1538Nassar, Dania: 29%, n=1534Navarro, Maria E.: 74%, n=1456Campanella, Lorianne: 32%, n=1449Golovnin, Lena: 48%, n=1433Thomsen, Scott: 45%, n=1420Gordon, Cynthia: 63%, n=1415Factor, Samuel M.: 46%, n=1383Johnson-Papillo, Carrie C.: 21%, n=1363Kandah, Sabri: 19%, n=1361Cohen, Raisa: 82%, n=1359Khan, Amiena A.: 79%, n=1303Rosenberg, Sydney B.: 10%, n=1279Cheng, Mary: 66%, n=1263Spencer, Oshea: 13%, n=1253Siemietkowski, John: 26%, n=1204Conroy, Charles R.: 27%, n=1198Dandelet, Kyle: 56%, n=1126Jeannopoulos, Amanda: 42%, n=1048Farber, Lauren T.: 47%, n=1040Kouris, Theodora N.: 76%, n=1031Crawford, Carol A.: 42%, n=950Reingold, Jonathan: 31%, n=935Ehrens, Lisa: 65%, n=900Adrian, Matthew T.: 51%, n=894Maiellano, Gioia: 24%, n=893Mcdermott, William: 56%, n=840Adams, Lori: 79%, n=823Kanellakos, Thanos: 27%, n=702Chugh, Amit: 45%, n=685Ubarri, Maria: 43%, n=542Kim, David: 84%, n=514Kelly, Wynne P.: 44%, n=468Russelburg, Joseph: 31%, n=390Donnolo, Paula: 76%, n=383Johnston, Paul L: 21%, n=377Degaeto, Anthony M.: 7%, n=377Dean, Larry R.: 17%, n=361Lyons, Francis J.: 25%, n=342Rey Caldas, Carmen: 54%, n=298Menkin, Jeffrey L.: 13%, n=277King, Metcalfe C.: 30%, n=277Hristova, Linda: 1%, n=203Pieters, Edwin: 56%, n=147Cusmano, Christopher: 0%, n=84Singh, Rantideva: 11%, n=62Fraiden, David: 56%, n=5510030010003000Decisions

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 — 52

U.S. immigration judges: volume and asylum grant rate
JudgeDecisionsGranted95% interval
Laforest, Brigitte7,78576%75% — 77%
Nelson, Barbara A.7,36733%32% — 34%
Brennan, Noel A.6,14287%87% — 88%
Gordon-Uruakpa, Vivienne E.5,59383%82% — 84%
Christensen, Jesse B.4,50340%38% — 41%
Poczter, Aviva L.3,64855%53% — 56%
Wright, Virna A.3,20559%58% — 61%
Mulligan, Thomas J.3,19875%73% — 76%
Zagzoug, Randa2,97778%76% — 79%
Segal, Alice2,90376%75% — 78%
Leeds, Frederic G.2,81877%75% — 78%
Loprest, F. James, JR.2,80467%65% — 69%
Thompson, Donald W., JR.2,54660%58% — 62%
Little, Anna C.2,34061%59% — 63%
Harbeck, Dorothy A.2,23950%48% — 52%
Douchy, Evalyn P.2,08273%71% — 75%
Mccarthy, James M.2,02437%35% — 39%
Klahr, Deborah E.1,82337%35% — 39%
Sponzo, Jem C.1,80363%61% — 65%
Cassin, Olivia L.1,72783%82% — 85%
Mcfarland, Michael G.1,72455%52% — 57%
Burns, John1,7132%2% — 3%
Sagesse, Cathy1,68041%39% — 44%
Peal, Tiesha1,66414%13% — 16%
Tsankov, Mimi1,63559%56% — 61%
Lurye, Maria1,59477%75% — 79%
Kolbe, Margaret1,53861%58% — 63%
Nassar, Dania1,53429%27% — 31%
Navarro, Maria E.1,45674%72% — 76%
Golovnin, Lena1,43348%46% — 51%
Thomsen, Scott1,42045%43% — 48%
Gordon, Cynthia1,41563%60% — 66%
Factor, Samuel M.1,38346%43% — 48%
Johnson-Papillo, Carrie C.1,36321%19% — 23%
Cohen, Raisa1,35982%80% — 84%
Khan, Amiena A.1,30379%76% — 81%
Siemietkowski, John1,20426%24% — 29%
Conroy, Charles R.1,19827%25% — 30%
Dandelet, Kyle1,12656%53% — 59%
Jeannopoulos, Amanda1,04842%39% — 45%
Kouris, Theodora N.1,03176%74% — 79%
Crawford, Carol A.95042%39% — 45%
Reingold, Jonathan93531%28% — 34%
Ehrens, Lisa90065%61% — 68%
Maiellano, Gioia89324%21% — 27%
Adams, Lori82379%76% — 82%
Kanellakos, Thanos70227%24% — 31%
Chugh, Amit68745%41% — 48%
Kim, David51484%80% — 87%
Rey Caldas, Carmen29954%48% — 59%
Hristova, Linda2031%1% — 4%
Cusmano, Christopher840%0% — 4%

Moved to another court — 10

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
Balasquide, Javier E.MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT4,34648%47% — 50%
Holmes-Simmons, TheresaCHARLOTTE — IMMIGRATION COURT3,76758%56% — 59%
Palmer, Brian T.CHARLOTTE — IMMIGRATION COURT1,58820%18% — 22%
Hom, Howard C.SANTA ANA — IMMIGRATION COURT1,58726%24% — 28%
Campanella, LorianneANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1,44932%30% — 35%
Cheng, MaryANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1,26366%64% — 69%
Spencer, OsheaHOUSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT1,25313%12% — 15%
Farber, Lauren T.PHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT1,04047%44% — 50%
Mcdermott, WilliamPHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT84056%53% — 59%
Ubarri, MariaMIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT54243%39% — 47%

Worked here before — 37

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
Rohan, Patricia A.not hearing cases8,85556%55% — 57%
Morace, Philip L.not hearing cases8,26163%62% — 64%
Mcmanus, Margaretnot hearing cases8,06776%75% — 77%
Bain, Terry A.nothing scheduled7,57588%87% — 88%
Chew, George T.not hearing cases7,11371%70% — 72%
Schoppert, Douglas B.nothing scheduled6,83974%73% — 75%
Weisel, Robert D.not hearing cases6,45549%48% — 50%
Lamb, Elizabeth A.not hearing cases6,05777%76% — 78%
Hom, Sandynot hearing cases5,86023%22% — 24%
Sichel, Helennot hearing cases5,65072%71% — 73%
Elstein, Annette S.not hearing cases5,61853%52% — 55%
Burr, Sarah M.not hearing cases4,60554%52% — 55%
Bukszpan, Joanna M.not hearing cases4,49265%64% — 67%
Wyke, William Vannot hearing cases4,13078%77% — 80%
Iskra, Waynenot hearing cases4,05036%34% — 37%
Defonzo, Paulnot hearing cases3,82343%41% — 44%
Hladylowycz, Roxanne C.nothing scheduled3,22732%30% — 34%
Ferris, Noel A.not hearing cases2,98637%35% — 38%
Chase, Jeffrey S.not hearing cases2,90135%34% — 37%
Tadal, Mirlandenot hearing cases2,87827%25% — 29%
Jankun, William F.not hearing cases2,3344%3% — 5%
Speer, John K.not hearing cases2,18221%19% — 23%
Kandah, Sabrinot hearing cases1,36119%17% — 21%
Rosenberg, Sydney B.not hearing cases1,27910%8% — 12%
Adrian, Matthew T.not hearing cases89451%48% — 54%
Kelly, Wynne P.nothing scheduled46844%39% — 48%
Russelburg, Josephnot hearing cases39031%27% — 36%
Donnolo, Paulanot hearing cases38376%72% — 80%
Johnston, Paul Lnot hearing cases37721%17% — 26%
Degaeto, Anthony M.not hearing cases3777%5% — 10%
Dean, Larry R.not hearing cases36117%14% — 21%
Lyons, Francis J.not hearing cases34225%21% — 30%
Menkin, Jeffrey L.not hearing cases27713%10% — 18%
King, Metcalfe C.not hearing cases27730%25% — 36%
Pieters, Edwinnot hearing cases14756%48% — 64%
Singh, Rantidevanot hearing cases6211%6% — 22%
Fraiden, Davidnot hearing cases5556%43% — 69%

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.