TACOMA — IMMIGRATION COURT
TACOMA WA
23%
Asylum grant rate
of 6,548 decisions · FY1979–FY2026
95% interval: 22% — 24%
- granted:
- 1,499
- denied:
- 5,049
How this percentage is calculated
How this compares
- TACOMA — IMMIGRATION COURT23% (6,548)
- 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
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.
Show as a table
| Period | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026partial | 356 | 6% | 4% — 9% |
| FY2025 | 387 | 10% | 8% — 14% |
| FY2024 | 183 | 22% | 16% — 28% |
| FY2023 | 160 | 28% | 21% — 35% |
| FY2022 | 103 | 37% | 28% — 47% |
| FY2021 | 97 | 18% | 11% — 26% |
| FY2020 | 474 | 38% | 34% — 42% |
| FY2019 | 678 | 29% | 26% — 33% |
| FY2018 | 670 | 27% | 24% — 31% |
| FY2017 | 608 | 21% | 18% — 25% |
| FY2016 | 316 | 34% | 29% — 40% |
| FY2015 | 285 | 33% | 28% — 39% |
| FY2014 | 231 | 24% | 19% — 30% |
| FY2013 | 154 | 14% | 10% — 21% |
| FY2012 | 119 | 15% | 10% — 23% |
| FY2011 | 252 | 28% | 23% — 34% |
| FY2010 | 158 | 34% | 27% — 41% |
| FY2009 | 100 | 19% | 13% — 28% |
| FY2008 | 101 | 16% | 10% — 24% |
| FY2007 | 105 | 28% | 20% — 37% |
| FY2006 | 136 | 18% | 12% — 25% |
| FY2005 | 83 | 7% | 3% — 15% |
| FY2004 | 44 | 11% | 5% — 24% |
| FY2003 | 75 | 23% | 15% — 33% |
| FY2002 | 57 | 18% | 10% — 29% |
| FY2001 | 133 | 14% | 9% — 21% |
| FY2000 | 104 | 4% | 2% — 9% |
| FY1999 | 92 | 3% | 1% — 9% |
| FY1998 | 81 | 17% | 11% — 27% |
| FY1997 | 57 | 14% | 7% — 25% |
| FY1996 | 30 | 20% | 10% — 37% |
| FY1995 | 51 | 6% | 2% — 16% |
| FY1994 | 48 | 6% | 2% — 17% |
| FY1993 | 20 | 0% | 0% — 16% |
How long a case takes
From service of the NTA to the decision on the application, across all judges of this court.
5 mo
median
half of cases: 3—8 mo
based on 6,548 cases
| Decided in | Cases | median | half of cases, mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026 | 356 | 4 mo | 2—7 |
| FY2025 | 387 | 6 mo | 4—8 |
| FY2024 | 183 | 6 mo | 4—9 |
| FY2023 | 160 | 6 mo | 4—8 |
| FY2022 | 103 | 5 mo | 4—10 |
| FY2021 | 97 | 5 mo | 4—16 |
| FY2020 | 474 | 6 mo | 4—9 |
| FY2019 | 678 | 5 mo | 3—7 |
| FY2018 | 670 | 5 mo | 3—7 |
| FY2017 | 608 | 6 mo | 4—8 |
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.
- 678
- cases waiting
- 1 mo
- already waited, median
- Half have waited between 0 mo and 5 mo.
- 641 (95%) 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.
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 — 3
| Judge | Decisions | Granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fitting, Tammy L. | 1,432 | 32% | 29% — 34% |
| Odell, John C. | 1,211 | 24% | 22% — 27% |
| Rosen, Joshua | 67 | 13% | 7% — 24% |
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.
| Judge | Court | Decisions | Granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geisse, Loreto | SACRAMENTO — IMMIGRATION COURT | 2,572 | 67% | 65% — 69% |
| Scala, Theresa | SEATTLE — IMMIGRATION COURT | 880 | 27% | 25% — 30% |
| Floyd, Charles Neil | SEATTLE — IMMIGRATION COURT | 485 | 32% | 28% — 36% |
Worked here before — 7
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.
| Judge | Decisions | Granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Josephson, Kennethnot hearing cases | 5,389 | 33% | 31% — 34% |
| Costanzo, Lawrence Dinot hearing cases | 2,641 | 47% | 45% — 49% |
| Kandler, Edward R.not hearing cases | 2,628 | 38% | 36% — 40% |
| Hoogasian, Amy C.not hearing cases | 429 | 71% | 66% — 75% |
| Young, Victoria E.not hearing cases | 241 | 24% | 19% — 30% |
| Allred, Keithnot hearing cases | 102 | 48% | 39% — 58% |
| Nishiyama, Drew T.nothing scheduled | 83 | 5% | 2% — 12% |
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.