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

New York Immigration Court

New York, NY

EOIR data through August 31, 2026 · built September 11, 2026 · What these dates mean

Where the court sits

Where to go and whom to call, from the EOIR reference tables.

26 Federal Plz, 12th Fl Rm1237
New York, NY 10278
(212) 602-6500

Addresses and phone numbers come from the EOIR reference tables as of the release cutoff. A court can move between releases, so check the address against your hearing notice and the EOIR site before you travel.

How this is counted

A court usually has several hearing locations, and the one on your notice need not be the one listed first: the order here is by the number of hearing records over the last twelve months, and a record is one case on the calendar. A phone number is missing where the reference table holds a placeholder instead of a number.

Where cases heard here come from

Where the people whose cases are heard here live, by state and ZIP code.

50 more states account for 9,493 cases in total.

In total the court appears in 3,570 ZIP codes and leads in 148.

Look up a ZIP code

This is an observation, not a court assignment: it shows where cases of people with this ZIP code were heard, not where filings are directed. Check the official assignment on the EOIR site.

How this is counted

Only cases where the person was not detained are counted: a detained person's case is heard where the facility is, so a home address says nothing about jurisdiction. The court is the one of the latest proceeding started within the last five fiscal years, and the ZIP code is the current one in the release — so for someone who has moved, the case may still sit with the earlier court. A ZIP code enters the table at fifty cases; for half of them the leading court takes nine cases in ten, but for one in six it takes less than three quarters, which is why every court carries its share and its volume.

56%

Asylum grant rate

of 231,557 decisions · FY1958–FY2026

95% interval: 56% — 57%

granted:
130,809
denied:
100,748
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. What is counted is a decision per proceeding, not per application: asylum, withholding and CAT protection are almost always asked for together, so withholding and CAT grants are counted separately from asylum. The U.S. fiscal year runs October 1 – September 30.

How this compares

  • New York Immigration Court56% (231,557)
  • All U.S. courts33% (1,369,763)

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 11 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
FY2026partial13,2077%7% — 8%
FY20256,24951%50% — 52%
FY20246,22478%77% — 79%
FY20236,85082%81% — 82%
FY20226,47880%79% — 81%
FY20211,30276%74% — 78%
FY20205,98749%48% — 50%
FY201910,30957%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%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
China106,25564%64% — 64%
India12,02650%50% — 51%
El Salvador9,55523%23% — 24%
Bangladesh7,52753%52% — 54%
Albania7,14171%70% — 72%
Ecuador5,94913%12% — 14%
Nepal5,19578%77% — 79%
Russia4,56669%68% — 71%
Honduras4,37939%37% — 40%
Pakistan4,33540%38% — 41%
Former Countries4,09961%59% — 62%
Mauritania4,02243%42% — 45%
Guatemala3,98024%23% — 26%
Guinea3,71562%61% — 64%
Former Countries2,86890%88% — 91%

Timing and waits

How long each stage of a case takes at this court. Every figure is a median: half of cases are faster, half slower. Data as of August 31, 2026; these are past and current cases, not a forecast for yours.

this courtnationwide

How long decided cases took

from the NTA to the decision

25 mo
half of cases: 14—43 mo
Cases decided
231,565
Half of cases
14—43 mo
NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided incasesthe case ran, medianhalf of cases, mo
FY202613,20733 mo25—46
FY20256,24936 mo23—81
FY20246,22462 mo24—80
FY20236,85060 mo48—78
FY20226,47848 mo39—69
FY20211,30246 mo34—68
FY20205,98737 mo16—52
FY201910,31239 mo27—56
FY20187,70243 mo30—55
FY20175,23141 mo30—52

Cases decided this year may have begun a decade ago, so this is not a forecast for a case filed today.

The NTA is the charging document; serving it opens the case in court. The figure is a median, not a mean: durations have a long tail, and a few decade-long cases would pull a mean far from the typical case.

How long undecided cases have already waited

from the NTA to the data cutoff

35 mo
about the same as nationwidenationwide 34 mo
half of proceedings: 28—48 mo
Proceedings in the queue
232,251
Half of proceedings
28—48 mo
Nationwide
34 mo · half: 25—45 mo
Hearing set after the cutoff
71.0% (70.8% — 71.2%) · nationwide 85.5%

Decided cases and waiting cases are different cases: the first have already left the queue, the second are still in it, so these two durations can differ in either direction.

The queue counts proceedings with no decision yet in the release. It is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will.

Shown separately is the share with a hearing scheduled after the cutoff: the rest have no future event in the release at all, and cannot be read as live alongside these.

When the nearest hearing is set

from the data cutoff to the nearest hearing

7 mo
about the same as nationwidenationwide 7 mo
half of cases: 2—19 mo
Cases with a date set
163,900
Half of cases
2—19 mo
Nationwide
7 mo · half: 2—15 mo
More than a year out
38.1% (37.9% — 38.4%) · nationwide 32.1%
Time to the nearest hearing by hearing type and by custody
What is setcasesmedianvs. nationwidea quarter longerover a year out
Master hearing74,4123 mo2.2 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 6 mo6 mo9.9%9.7% — 10.2%
Individual hearing93,42717 mo1.5 times longer than nationwidenationwide 11 mo27 mo61.7%61.3% — 62.0%

In the rows the figure runs to the nearest hearing of that kind, so it is never shorter than the overall one.

Under each share — the 95% interval.

Hearings set shortly after the cutoff have already happened by the time you read this. The count here is of cases, while the queue above counts proceedings, so the two figures need not agree. The horizon describes the docket, not the speed of the court.

Rows attached to cases already decided are excluded — the release keeps them, and with them the count of those waiting would be a tenth higher. The judge and court come from the schedule row itself: whoever will hold the hearing, not whoever the proceeding is assigned to. Cases where the person is detained have a hearing within days, the rest within months, and courts at detention centres consist almost entirely of the former. The median is only given from fifty cases up: below that it rests on two or three rows.

From a master calendar hearing to the individual hearing

from a master calendar hearing to the one set after it

21 mo
2 times longer than nationwidenationwide 11 mo
half: 9—37 mo
Master calendar hearings in the year
196,677
Followed by an individual hearing
15.2% (15.1% — 15.4%) · 29,927 of 196,677
To the individual hearing, half of cases
9—37 mo
Nationwide
11 mo · half: 2—24 mo
  • A master calendar slot holds 26 cases at once, and the busiest one this year held 683; an individual hearing slot holds 1.
  • On a master calendar day 58 cases in all are called before the judge, and on the busiest day of the year, 702.
  • Where the person is detained, the individual hearing comes in 35 mo; for the rest, in 21 mo — hearings: 167 and 29,758.
What was scheduled after a master calendar hearing: share of hearings and median gap
What was scheduled nexthearingssharemedian gap
An individual hearing29,92715.2%15.1% — 15.4%14.7% nationwide21 mo
Another master calendar101,05551.4%51.2% — 51.6%52.9% nationwide4 mo
Nothing: the proceeding is over42,91521.8%21.6% — 22.0%27.5% nationwide—
Nothing: no hearing set yet22,78011.6%11.4% — 11.7%4.9% nationwide—

Under each share — the 95% interval.

The figures cover master calendar hearings over the last twelve months of the release and what was set after each of them. The shares describe hearings, not cases: one case passes through several master hearings in a year and is counted as many times.

The next hearing has usually not happened yet: its date can be moved. A separate line shows after how many hearings nothing is scheduled — either the proceeding is over or the calendar has not been filled in, and towards the end of the window the second share grows simply because the calendar has not caught up. Cases where the person is detained move more than twenty times faster than the rest, and courts at detention centres consist almost entirely of them. A slot counts the cases of one judge at one time: you go to your judge's courtroom, not to the building. No hearing dates are shown here in any form. The median is only given from fifty hearings up.

Wait for a first hearing after moving here

from arrival here to the first hearing

12 mo
1.3 times longer than nationwidenationwide 9 mo
half of cases: 5—16 mo
Cases moved here
68,161
Half of cases
5—16 mo
Nationwide
9 mo · half: 3—19 mo
From the last hearing at the former court to the first here
13 mo · nationwide 13 mo
Between two ordinary hearings here
7 mo · nationwide 5 mo
  • 381 of 68,161 arrivals have no hearing set here yet.
Time to the first hearing after a move, by custody status
Casesmovedmedianvs. nationwidea quarter longer
Person detained1,23713 mo25 times longer than nationwidenationwide 16 d17 mo
Not detained66,92412 mo1.1 times longer than nationwidenationwide 10 mo16 mo

Over the same period 52,242 cases left this court.

The figures describe those who have already moved; they promise nothing about any one case.

The figures cover cases that arrived at this court on a change of venue. Only moves made at least a year before the release cutoff are included: those who arrived later may not have been given a hearing date yet, and their zero would describe the release date rather than the court. Some hearings are scheduled rather than held, and scheduled ones move; shown separately is how many arrivals have no hearing set at all. The gap between two ordinary hearings at the same court is measured between hearings, and what compares with it is the figure also counted from a hearing at the former court, not from the date of arrival. Cases where the person is detained move faster than the rest, and courts at detention centres consist almost entirely of them. The median is only given from a hundred moves up.

In absentia decisions

Removal cases at this court completed without the respondent in the room. This is not about the court's strictness: attendance depends on whether the person is detained, whether notice reached them and whether they have counsel.

19% of proceedings ended in absentia — 125,209 of 664,357.

  • The whole court19% (664,357)
  • All U.S. courts19% (11,588,297)
Share of in absentia decisions by fiscal year
Fiscal yearProceedingsIn absentiaShare
FY202110,5362432%
FY202237,0703,79310%
FY202342,9217,60818%
FY202466,73513,65620%
FY202565,12416,33825%
FY2026partial52,78418,95736%

The denominator is every completed removal proceeding (RMV): other proceeding types almost never end in absentia. The headline share covers the whole history, while the table shows the latest fiscal years by the proceeding's completion date. An in absentia order can be challenged by a motion to reopen.

Bonds

What it takes to get out of custody at this court: how often an amount is set, and how much.

1 bond decisions in September 2025 — August 2026; an amount was set in 0 of them. 0% are attached by a custody hearing.

An amount was set fewer than 25 times — 0 in all. There is nothing to state a median on: it would describe a handful of cases rather than the judge. The national median amount is $7,500.

How often an amount is set

  • The whole court, September 2025 — August 20260% (1)
  • The whole court, October 2021 — August 202517% (6)
  • All U.S. courts25% (91,185)

The code table covers September 2025 — August 2026; “was” in the amount column covers October 2021 — August 2025.

Under the share — the 95% interval; under the amount — the quartiles.

EOIR publishes no reference for the decision codes on this field — the release contains no lookup for it, so the codes are shown as codes, next to what has been measured. The amount does not depend on the judge alone: courts see different mixes of cases, criminal histories and circumstances of arrest.

How this is counted

"Now" and "before" stand side by side because over the past year both the median amount set and the share released from custody have moved markedly. What is measured under each code is how often an amount is set and how often the person was released from custody within sixty days of the decision: three codes carry an amount almost always and the rest almost never, and that gap is what the whole calculation rests on. The released share is counted not from every decision but from those whose sixty days have already passed: for a decision a week old "not released" would mean "we do not know". Payment itself is not recorded — "released" is read from the custody history, not from a record of a bond being posted. A median is stated from twenty-five amounts upwards, and the quartiles beside it show how widely the judge varies.

Full statisticsMotions, adjournment reasons, appeals to the BIA, three-member panels and second rounds after a remand.

Motions

What this court does with requests made along the way. Motions decided by this court's judges are counted.

268,882 motions decided in October 2021 — August 2026, 74,620 of them in the last twelve months. 54% are attached to the judge by the nearest hearing.

0%50%100%86%88%91%85%59%20222023202420252026

Thick line — The whole court, thin line — nationwide.

The band is the Wilson interval: the share lies within it with 95% confidence.

FY2026 is incomplete: 11 of twelve months are in the release, so its point is hollow.

Show the numbers
Motion for Continuance: share granted by fiscal year
Fiscal yearVolumeShareNationwide
FY2026incomplete5,59359%57% — 60%55%
FY20254,23985%83% — 86%71%
FY20242,52391%90% — 92%80%
FY20232,69988%86% — 89%79%
FY20223,22086%85% — 87%79%
Share of motions granted, by type
MotionDecidednow / beforeGrantedSeptember 2025 — August 2026BeforeOctober 2021 — August 2025Nationallynow / before
Motion for Change of Venue16,29151,55088%88% — 89%99%99% — 99%86%95%
Motion to Dismiss60027,37668%64% — 72%97%97% — 97%80%96%
Motion to Substitute Counsel6,97319,35399%98% — 99%98%98% — 98%97%96%
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel7,41311,23394%93% — 94%92%92% — 93%91%88%
Motion for Continuance6,01712,25760%59% — 61%87%87% — 88%56%77%
Motion to Recalendar6,3968,48094%93% — 95%93%93% — 94%85%88%
Motion to Reopen2,61910,98846%44% — 48%77%76% — 78%45%67%
Motion to Terminate4,6798,90162%60% — 63%74%73% — 75%59%71%
Motion for Video Appearance6,2984,08948%47% — 49%71%69% — 72%69%79%
Motion to Consolidate1,9167,35287%86% — 89%88%87% — 89%88%90%
Motion to Set an Individual/Merits Hearing1,2917,69677%74% — 79%85%84% — 86%76%83%
Motion to accept late filed documents2,3055,38077%76% — 79%90%89% — 91%86%90%

Under each share — the 95% interval.

A dash means the window holds too few decisions to name a share; an empty recent column means the judge no longer decides motions of that kind. What the letters G and D mean, EOIR does not publish: there is no lookup for this field, and they are read from the behaviour of the cases.

How this is counted

The last twelve months and the years before them are never merged: motion practice changes faster than a case runs, and a single five-year number would average two different eras. A motion record carries no judge code of its own — it is taken from the nearest hearing by date, that is, from whoever was actually sitting on the case at the time; six motions in ten attach that way, the rest are credited to the judge of the proceeding, and the two methods disagree in one case out of five. The "nationally" column shows where judges genuinely differ: procedural motions are granted by nearly everyone nearly always.

Adjournment reasons

Why hearings at this court do not go ahead, and how far that pushes cases.

Of 237,466 hearings with a stated reason in September 2025 — August 2026, 157,277 were adjourned (66%).

0 d250 d500 d143 d175 d231 d314 d152 d20222023202420252026

Thick line — The whole court, thin line — nationwide.

FY2026 is incomplete: 11 of twelve months are in the release, so its point is hollow.

Show the numbers
Median gap to the next hearing by fiscal year
Fiscal yearVolumeMedian days, quartiles belowNationwide
FY2026incomplete146,191152 d49 d — 366 d93 d
FY2025155,749314 d118 d — 706 d161 d
FY2024159,649231 d104 d — 413 d146 d
FY2023133,508175 d87 d — 300 d132 d
FY2022104,870143 d56 d — 511 d120 d
Adjournment reasons: share of all adjournments and median days to the next hearing
ReasonAdjournmentsnow / beforeShareSeptember 2025 — August 2026NationallyFollow-upMedian days
Respondent to seek representation9,590105,6616.1%6.0% — 6.2%was 19.5%9.3%15.3%99%14074–217was 19699 nationally
MC to IC - merits hearing24,60861,01915.6%15.5% — 15.8%was 11.2%12.0%10.2%93%594239–1,099was 756309 nationally
IJ reassignment43,52537,93327.7%27.5% — 27.9%was 7.0%14.2%10.5%80%16167–350was 119134 nationally
IJ leave12,10443,8047.7%7.6% — 7.8%was 8.1%5.6%5.7%95%15444–350was 168109 nationally
Vacated master calendar hearing5,73442,2853.6%3.6% — 3.7%was 7.8%3.8%4.3%30%21270–510was 796263 nationally
Preparation - respondent/attorney/representative13,81326,7808.8%8.6% — 8.9%was 4.9%9.1%8.1%99%7035–155was 14734 nationally
Placed in trial queue331,650—was 5.8%0.5%0.7%——
Data Entry Error6,31422,1564.0%3.9% — 4.1%was 4.1%4.0%4.3%82%13214–425was 6714 nationally
To allow for scheduling of priority case5,60319,0713.6%3.5% — 3.7%was 3.5%5.4%2.4%86%17530–658was 153202 nationally
Other no-show by respondent/respondent's attorney or rep.1,76818,3631.1%1.1% — 1.2%was 3.4%0.7%2.4%52%6322–140was 12735 nationally
IJ completion at hearing8,26511,1495.3%5.1% — 5.4%was 2.1%8.3%4.5%22%11728–314was 1528 nationally
Other respondent/respondent's attorney/representative request4,31513,7292.7%2.7% — 2.8%was 2.5%2.8%2.9%93%11244–244was 16862 nationally

The upper figure in a cell covers September 2025 — August 2026; the lower one and “was” cover October 2021 — August 2025.

Under the share — the 95% interval; under the median — the quartiles.

The reason does not assign blame: "respondent to seek representation" covers both a person looking for counsel and a court granting time to look. A dash means the window holds too few adjournments to name a share.

How this is counted

The recent window and the years before it are shown apart: adjournment practice changes faster than a case runs, and it is not only the frequencies that move but the reasons themselves, in different directions. Case-completion codes (8A, 8B, 8C) are separated from genuine continuances by behaviour rather than by wording: after them another hearing rarely follows, while after preparation continuances it almost always does. That is what the "follow-up" column shows, and a low value means "the case usually ended here", not "the adjournment failed". The median days figure is how far this reason pushed the next hearing; half the cases fall between the quartiles shown.

What became of appeals to the BIA

Appeals against decisions by this court's judges. The key to the table is who filed: the same outcome means opposite things when the respondent appeals and when the government does.

BIA appeal outcomes by filer
Filed byAppealsDecision stoodSent backOverturnedClosed without merits
Respondent70,78577%14%1%6%
nationally712,35574%13%1%11%
Government (DHS)4,04418%38%21%19%
nationally56,04917%56%9%17%

There are also appeals of other kinds, not counted in this table: MTR BIA — 38,460, Appeal of IJ MTR — 6,830, Circuit Court Remand — 3,450, Interlocutory Appeal — 533, Bond Appeal — 70, Bond MTR Rec — 1, Bond MTR Reo — 1, Bond MTR Rei — 1.

How often decisions are appealed

Share of the judge's decisions that were appealed
Fiscal yearGrantedAppealed by the governmentDeniedAppealed by the respondent
FY20219912% (1.6%)31160% (68.2%)
FY20225,1930.0% (0.6%)1,28570.0% (69.6%)
FY20235,5880.1% (0.8%)1,26265.1% (66.0%)
FY20244,8800.8% (1.9%)1,34451.7% (58.6%)
FY20253,20110.4% (8.1%)3,04850.2% (64.6%)
FY202695910% (8.8%)12,24836.6% (58.4%)

In brackets, the same share across all courts. Counted by the date of the judge's decision rather than the Board's: an appeal is filed within a month, so recent years are nearly complete here — unlike the outcomes above.

Only appeals on the merits (Case Appeal) are counted: motions to the Board itself and bond appeals are different events. The same outcome means opposite things depending on the filer, which is why the bucket is called "the judge's decision stood", not "X won".

How this is counted

A dismissed appeal means the removal order stood when the respondent appealed, and that the asylum grant stood when the government did; the two do not go into one percentage. Recent years are undercounted: an appeal takes months or years to resolve, so outcomes are counted by the date of the Board's decision while the appealed share is counted by the date of the judge's decision.

Board panels

How often appeals from this court's judges go to a three-member panel instead of a single member.

Appeals on the merits decided in September 2025 — August 2026: 1,098.

3.3%

of appeals referred to a three-member panel, September 2025 — August 2026

36 of 1,098 referred

95% interval 2.4% — 4.5%

before (October 2021 — August 2025) — 12.8%

nationally 4.1%

0.0%50.0%100.0%20.0%12.7%6.3%5.1%3.1%20222023202420252026

Thick line — The whole court, thin line — nationwide.

The band is the Wilson interval: the share lies within it with 95% confidence.

FY2026 is incomplete: 11 of twelve months are in the release, so its point is hollow.

Show the numbers
Share of appeals referred to a panel, by fiscal year
Fiscal yearVolumeShareNationwide
FY2026incomplete1,0233.1%2.2% — 4.4%4.1%
FY20257085.1%3.7% — 7.0%5.5%
FY20248556.3%4.9% — 8.1%5.9%
FY20231,44212.7%11.1% — 14.5%8.4%
FY20221,47420.0%18.1% — 22.1%13.5%

What follows shows in the outcomes: of 9,114 referred appeals the case went back to the judge in 60.5%, against 10.1% for the rest. The release carries no grounds for referral, so what stands here is measured behaviour, not a decoded label. This is an observation, not an explanation: a panel is not stricter, it gets different cases.

How often an appeal goes to a panel

  • The whole court, September 2025 — August 20263% (1,098)
  • The whole court, October 2021 — August 202513% (4,404)
  • All U.S. courts4% (31,254)

By who filed the appeal

Share of appeals referred to a three-member panel, by who filed
Filed byAppealsnow / beforeReferredSeptember 2025 — August 2026BeforeOctober 2021 — August 2025Nationally
Respondent1,0724,2043.2%2.3% — 4.4%11.8%10.9% — 12.8%2.6%7.2%
Government (DHS)26189—33.9%27.5% — 40.9%23.7%21.5%

Under each share — the 95% interval.

The grounds for referral are not in the release: the table has no column pointing at a lookup, so in place of a reason stands the measured behaviour of the cases. And this is not a property of the judge alone: panels take cases of a particular kind, and judges see different mixes of them.

How this is counted

The grounds themselves are listed in 8 CFR 1003.1(e)(6) — all of them about complexity or a departure from law. Counting goes by the date of the Board's decision, not the date the appeal was filed: referral happens between the two, and an unresolved appeal may lack the marker simply because it has not been reached yet. The two windows are shown apart because the referral rate has moved markedly over the past year, and almost entirely among respondent appeals: without the filer axis the shift would read as a general one. A share is stated from fifty decided appeals in a window upwards: the event is rare, and on fewer the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges.

The second round after a remand

Cases the Board sent back to judges of this court — and how they ended on the second round.

Completed second rounds over five years: 1,196. Unfinished ones are not counted here.

36.8%

of them ended in protection being granted

protection in 440 of 1,196

95% interval 34.1% — 39.6%

nationally 17.5%

0.0%50.0%100.0%50.9%39.7%35.9%31.1%14.3%20222023202420252026

Thick line — The whole court, thin line — nationwide.

The band is the Wilson interval: the share lies within it with 95% confidence.

FY2026 is incomplete: 11 of twelve months are in the release, so its point is hollow.

Show the numbers
Share of second rounds ending in protection, by fiscal year
Fiscal yearVolumeShareNationwide
FY2026incomplete11214.3%9.0% — 22.0%11.8%
FY202522831.1%25.5% — 37.4%17.5%
FY202428435.9%30.6% — 41.6%17.7%
FY202335839.7%34.7% — 44.8%18.1%
FY202221450.9%44.3% — 57.6%19.8%

The same judge runs the second round in 645 of 1,196 cases — 54%. Nationally 45%. Outcomes must not be compared across this: cases that changed judges took longer, so shifts in practice over that time bore on them more heavily.

How often a second round ends in protection

  • The whole court37% (1,196)
  • All U.S. courts18% (22,363)

How the second rounds ended

How second rounds ended after the Board sent the case back
OutcomeCasesThe whole courtNationally
Protection granted44036.8%17.5%
Removal, but withholding or CAT granted262.2%2.2%
Removal, denial26722.3%29.6%
Proceeding terminated40934.2%36.9%
Voluntary departure30.3%2.5%
Administrative closure514.3%10.9%

By who filed the appeal

Second-round outcome by who filed the appeal
Filed byCasesProtection grantedProceeding terminatedNationally
Respondent1,04337.0%34.1% — 40.0%34.3%31.5% — 37.3%19.7%
Government (DHS)14436.1%28.7% — 44.2%34.7%27.4% — 42.8%13.7%

Under each share — the 95% interval.

The judge here is the one whose decision was appealed, not necessarily the one who ran the second round. The denominator is completed second rounds, not all remanded cases. And this is not a property of the judge alone: the Board remands cases of a particular kind, and judges see different mixes of them.

How this is counted

Counting is by the date the second round ended; unfinished rounds are excluded — among cases remanded over the past five years, about a third are still running. A share is stated from thirty completed rounds upwards: on fewer the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges. There is no "now and before" pair here as in neighbouring blocks: second rounds are rare and slow, about three per judge in a year. The history is in the yearly series — which also shows why one figure for five years is not enough: what moved the headline share was the share of terminations, not judges growing stricter.

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=8260Mcmanus, Margaret: 76%, n=8066Laforest, Brigitte: 76%, n=7788Bain, Terry A.: 88%, n=7575Nelson, Barbara A.: 32%, n=7458Chew, George T.: 71%, n=7113Schoppert, Douglas B.: 74%, n=6839Weisel, Robert D.: 49%, n=6455Brennan, Noel A.: 87%, n=6143Lamb, Elizabeth A.: 77%, n=6055Hom, Sandy: 23%, n=5860Sichel, Helen: 72%, n=5649Elstein, Annette S.: 53%, n=5617Gordon-Uruakpa, Vivienne E.: 83%, n=5596Burr, Sarah M.: 54%, n=4603Christensen, Jesse B.: 40%, n=4503Bukszpan, Joanna M.: 65%, n=4491Balasquide, Javier E.: 48%, n=4382Wyke, William Van: 78%, n=4130Iskra, Wayne: 36%, n=4050Defonzo, Paul: 43%, n=3822Holmes-Simmons, Theresa: 58%, n=3768Poczter, Aviva L.: 55%, n=3668Wright, Virna A.: 58%, n=3296Hladylowycz, Roxanne C.: 32%, n=3228Mulligan, Thomas J.: 75%, n=3201Opaciuch, Adam: 22%, n=2997Ferris, Noel A.: 37%, n=2986Zagzoug, Randa: 78%, n=2977Segal, Alice: 76%, n=2902Chase, Jeffrey S.: 35%, n=2901Tadal, Mirlande: 27%, n=2878Loprest, F. James, JR.: 66%, n=2846Leeds, Frederic G.: 77%, n=2813Thompson, Donald W., JR.: 60%, n=2546Little, Anna C.: 57%, n=2542Jankun, William F.: 4%, n=2333Harbeck, Dorothy A.: 49%, n=2289Speer, John K.: 21%, n=2182Douchy, Evalyn P.: 73%, n=2088Mccarthy, James M.: 37%, n=2051Klahr, Deborah E.: 34%, n=1984Peal, Tiesha: 13%, n=1914Sponzo, Jem C.: 63%, n=1805Burns, John: 2%, n=1734Cassin, Olivia L.: 83%, n=1727Mcfarland, Michael G.: 55%, n=1725Sagesse, Cathy: 41%, n=1708Tsankov, Mimi: 59%, n=1641Palmer, Brian T.: 20%, n=1623Hom, Howard C.: 26%, n=1600Lurye, Maria: 77%, n=1597Kolbe, Margaret: 59%, n=1582Nassar, Dania: 29%, n=1534Campanella, Lorianne: 32%, n=1488Navarro, Maria E.: 74%, n=1455Golovnin, Lena: 48%, n=1445Thomsen, Scott: 45%, n=1433Johnson-Papillo, Carrie C.: 20%, n=1419Gordon, Cynthia: 63%, n=1417Factor, Samuel M.: 45%, n=1401Kandah, Sabri: 19%, n=1361Cohen, Raisa: 82%, n=1357Khan, Amiena A.: 79%, n=1304Spencer, Oshea: 13%, n=1302Rosenberg, Sydney B.: 10%, n=1279Cheng, Mary: 66%, n=1261Siemietkowski, John: 25%, n=1258Conroy, Charles R.: 27%, n=1203Dandelet, Kyle: 56%, n=1128Farber, Lauren T.: 47%, n=1056Jeannopoulos, Amanda: 42%, n=1054Kouris, Theodora N.: 76%, n=1034Crawford, Carol A.: 41%, n=980Reingold, Jonathan: 30%, n=950Baez, Lucy: 20%, n=941Ehrens, Lisa: 65%, n=901Maiellano, Gioia: 24%, n=895Adrian, Matthew T.: 51%, n=894Mcdermott, William: 55%, n=856Adams, Lori: 79%, n=827Kanellakos, Thanos: 27%, n=725Chugh, Amit: 44%, n=690Ubarri, Maria: 42%, n=557Kim, David: 83%, n=517Kelly, 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=299Menkin, Jeffrey L.: 13%, n=277King, Metcalfe C.: 30%, n=277Hristova, Linda: 2%, n=245Pieters, Edwin: 56%, n=147Kitchen, James: 0%, n=115Cusmano, Christopher: 3%, n=96Kilker, Jean M.: 9%, n=81Samuels, Laurie: 0%, n=65Holloway, Richard: 9%, n=64Singh, Rantideva: 11%, n=62Fraiden, David: 56%, n=55Gillman, Marla: 2%, n=5310030010003000Decisions

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 — 59

U.S. immigration judges: volume and asylum grant rate
JudgeDecisionsGranted95% interval
Laforest, Brigitte7,78876%75% — 77%
Nelson, Barbara A.7,45932%31% — 34%
Brennan, Noel A.6,14387%87% — 88%
Gordon-Uruakpa, Vivienne E.5,59683%82% — 84%
Christensen, Jesse B.4,50340%38% — 41%
Poczter, Aviva L.3,66855%53% — 56%
Wright, Virna A.3,29758%56% — 59%
Mulligan, Thomas J.3,20175%73% — 76%
Zagzoug, Randa2,97878%76% — 79%
Segal, Alice2,90676%75% — 78%
Loprest, F. James, JR.2,84666%64% — 68%
Leeds, Frederic G.2,81377%75% — 78%
Thompson, Donald W., JR.2,54660%58% — 62%
Little, Anna C.2,54257%55% — 58%
Harbeck, Dorothy A.2,29049%47% — 51%
Douchy, Evalyn P.2,08873%71% — 75%
Mccarthy, James M.2,05137%35% — 39%
Klahr, Deborah E.1,98434%32% — 36%
Peal, Tiesha1,91413%11% — 14%
Sponzo, Jem C.1,80563%61% — 65%
Burns, John1,7342%2% — 3%
Cassin, Olivia L.1,72783%82% — 85%
Mcfarland, Michael G.1,72555%52% — 57%
Sagesse, Cathy1,70841%38% — 43%
Tsankov, Mimi1,64159%56% — 61%
Palmer, Brian T.1,62320%18% — 22%
Lurye, Maria1,59777%75% — 79%
Kolbe, Margaret1,58259%57% — 62%
Nassar, Dania1,53429%27% — 31%
Navarro, Maria E.1,45574%72% — 76%
Golovnin, Lena1,44548%45% — 51%
Thomsen, Scott1,43345%42% — 47%
Johnson-Papillo, Carrie C.1,41920%18% — 22%
Gordon, Cynthia1,41763%60% — 65%
Factor, Samuel M.1,40145%43% — 48%
Cohen, Raisa1,35782%80% — 84%
Khan, Amiena A.1,30479%76% — 81%
Siemietkowski, John1,25825%23% — 28%
Conroy, Charles R.1,20327%25% — 30%
Dandelet, Kyle1,12856%53% — 59%
Jeannopoulos, Amanda1,05442%39% — 45%
Kouris, Theodora N.1,03476%73% — 79%
Crawford, Carol A.98041%38% — 44%
Reingold, Jonathan95030%27% — 33%
Baez, Lucy94120%18% — 23%
Ehrens, Lisa90165%62% — 68%
Maiellano, Gioia89524%21% — 27%
Adams, Lori82779%76% — 81%
Kanellakos, Thanos72527%24% — 31%
Chugh, Amit69244%41% — 48%
Kim, David51783%80% — 86%
Rey Caldas, Carmen30054%48% — 59%
Hristova, Linda2452%1% — 5%
Kitchen, James1150%0% — 3%
Cusmano, Christopher963%1% — 9%
Kilker, Jean M.819%4% — 17%
Samuels, Laurie650%0% — 6%
Holloway, Richard649%4% — 19%
Gillman, Marla532%<1% — 10%

Moved to another court — 9

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 Court4,38448%46% — 49%
Holmes-Simmons, TheresaCharlotte Immigration Court3,77058%56% — 59%
Hom, Howard C.Santa Ana Immigration Court1,60026%24% — 28%
Campanella, LorianneAnnandale Immigration Court1,48832%29% — 34%
Spencer, OsheaHouston Immigration Court1,30213%11% — 15%
Cheng, MaryAnnandale Immigration Court1,26166%64% — 69%
Farber, Lauren T.Philadelphia Immigration Court1,05647%44% — 50%
Mcdermott, WilliamPhiladelphia Immigration Court85655%52% — 58%
Ubarri, MariaMiami Immigration Court55742%38% — 46%

Worked here before — 38

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 cases8,26063%62% — 64%
Mcmanus, MargaretNot hearing cases8,06676%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 cases6,05677%76% — 78%
Hom, SandyNot hearing cases5,86023%22% — 24%
Sichel, HelenNot hearing cases5,65072%71% — 73%
Elstein, Annette S.Not hearing cases5,61753%52% — 55%
Burr, Sarah M.Not hearing cases4,60454%52% — 55%
Bukszpan, Joanna M.Not hearing cases4,49165%64% — 67%
Wyke, William VanNot hearing cases4,13078%77% — 80%
Iskra, WayneNot hearing cases4,05036%34% — 37%
Defonzo, PaulNot hearing cases3,82243%41% — 44%
Hladylowycz, Roxanne C.Nothing scheduled3,22832%30% — 34%
Opaciuch, AdamNot hearing cases2,99722%20% — 23%
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 cases2,3334%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, a transfer and an extended absence cannot be told apart — only what the calendar shows is stated here.

How this is counted

Hearings are scheduled two to three years out, so an empty calendar for a working judge is rare; but for a judge who went quiet in the last few months it may simply be the data lagging. The lookup table's "active" flag is not used: it disagrees with the calendar for a third of judges.

How to cite this page

Figures on this page belong to one monthly release and are replaced whole by the next. The release label and the data cutoff are part of the citation for that reason: without them the number cannot be checked later.

Asylum Beacon. New York Immigration Court. EOIR Case Data, U.S. DOJ FOIA Library, release 2026-08, data through 2026-08-31. https://asylumbeacon.com/en/court/NYC

Methodology in full

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 give legal advice. The release lags by roughly a month, so check ACIS or Respondent Access for your current case status. The source has known gaps, including among relief applications: if something is missing here, that does not mean it is missing from your case.