Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

GUAYNABO — IMMIGRATION COURT

GUAYNABO PR

40%

Asylum grant rate

of 1,036 decisions · FY1960–FY2026

95% interval: 37%43%

granted:
415
denied:
621
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

  • GUAYNABO — IMMIGRATION COURT40% (1,036)
  • 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%198619962001200620212026

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 (16): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY2026partial530%0%7%
FY2025440%0%8%
FY20241540%20%64%
FY20234665%51%77%
FY20225068%54%79%
FY20211794%73%99%
FY20201090%60%98%
FY2019888%53%98%
FY2017683%44%97%
FY20161100%21%100%
FY201510%0%79%
FY2014333%6%79%
FY2013425%5%70%
FY2012450%15%85%
FY201120%0%66%
FY2010617%3%56%
FY2009170%0%18%
FY2008110%0%26%
FY20072938%23%56%
FY20062413%4%31%
FY20054319%10%33%
FY20045814%7%25%
FY2003439%4%22%
FY20022218%7%39%
FY20013244%28%61%
FY20001867%44%84%
FY19993650%34%66%
FY19983979%64%89%
FY19972938%23%56%
FY19967076%65%84%
FY199511659%50%68%
FY19946642%31%54%
FY19933418%8%34%
FY19921323%8%50%
FY1991560%23%88%
FY19901030%11%60%
FY1989944%19%73%
FY1988825%7%59%
FY1987911%2%44%
FY19861250%25%75%
FY198540%0%49%
FY198340%0%49%
FY198250%0%43%

How long a case takes

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

8 mo

median

half of cases: 5—16 mo

based on 1,036 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY20265322 mo1729
FY20254417 mo1520
FY20234610 mo713
FY20225011 mo421
FY2005436 mo513
FY2004585 mo46
FY2003435 mo47
FY2001326 mo620
FY19993610 mo514
FY19983910 mo717

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.

422
cases waiting
8 mo
already waited, median
  • Half have waited between 3 mo and 17 mo.
  • 314 (74%) 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%Ortiz-Segura, Rafael: 45%, n=4804Bernardis, Craig De: 35%, n=1753Defillo, Irma Lopez: 24%, n=573CEA: 24%, n=306Guilloty, Crimilda: 24%, n=10510030010003000Decisions

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.

Worked here before — 5

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
Ortiz-Segura, Rafaelnot hearing cases4,80445%44%47%
Bernardis, Craig Denot hearing cases1,75335%33%37%
Defillo, Irma Lopeznot hearing cases57324%21%28%
Code CEA, name missing from the lookup tablenot hearing cases30624%20%29%
Guilloty, Crimildanot hearing cases10524%17%33%

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.