Napanoch Immigration Court
Napanoch, 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.
One more address
- 155 Lt Vanwinkle Drive, Binghamton, NY 13905 · 343 hearing records in 12 months
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.
36%
Asylum grant rate
of 2,621 decisions · FY1987–FY2026
95% interval: 34% — 38%
- granted:
- 948
- denied:
- 1,673
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
- Napanoch Immigration Court36% (2,621)
- 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
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 (16): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.
Show as a table
| Period | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026partial | 40 | 5% | 1% — 17% |
| FY2025 | 12 | 0% | 0% — 24% |
| FY2024 | 13 | 0% | 0% — 23% |
| FY2023 | 4 | 0% | 0% — 49% |
| FY2022 | 3 | 0% | 0% — 56% |
| FY2021 | 5 | 0% | 0% — 43% |
| FY2020 | 4 | 0% | 0% — 49% |
| FY2019 | 9 | 0% | 0% — 30% |
| FY2018 | 6 | 0% | 0% — 39% |
| FY2017 | 11 | 0% | 0% — 26% |
| FY2016 | 16 | 0% | 0% — 19% |
| FY2015 | 9 | 0% | 0% — 30% |
| FY2014 | 10 | 0% | 0% — 28% |
| FY2013 | 11 | 0% | 0% — 26% |
| FY2012 | 15 | 0% | 0% — 20% |
| FY2011 | 8 | 0% | 0% — 32% |
| FY2010 | 11 | 0% | 0% — 26% |
| FY2009 | 5 | 0% | 0% — 43% |
| FY2008 | 3 | 33% | 6% — 79% |
| FY2007 | 3 | 0% | 0% — 56% |
| FY2006 | 20 | 0% | 0% — 16% |
| FY2005 | 96 | 42% | 32% — 52% |
| FY2004 | 115 | 37% | 28% — 46% |
| FY2003 | 157 | 24% | 18% — 31% |
| FY2002 | 277 | 31% | 26% — 37% |
| FY2001 | 296 | 45% | 39% — 51% |
| FY2000 | 372 | 51% | 46% — 56% |
| FY1999 | 311 | 51% | 46% — 57% |
| FY1998 | 351 | 55% | 50% — 60% |
| FY1997 | 103 | 46% | 36% — 55% |
| FY1996 | 3 | 0% | 0% — 56% |
| FY1995 | 27 | 0% | 0% — 12% |
| FY1994 | 168 | 7% | 4% — 11% |
| FY1993 | 100 | 6% | 3% — 12% |
| FY1992 | 4 | 0% | 0% — 49% |
| FY1990 | 10 | 10% | 2% — 40% |
| FY1989 | 2 | 0% | 0% — 66% |
| FY1988 | 7 | 0% | 0% — 35% |
| FY1987 | 4 | 0% | 0% — 49% |
By applicant nationality
| Nationality | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sri Lanka | 339 | 83% | 79% — 87% |
| China | 247 | 26% | 21% — 32% |
| Nigeria | 216 | 23% | 18% — 29% |
| Albania | 155 | 33% | 26% — 41% |
| Ghana | 115 | 4% | 2% — 10% |
| Former Countries | 101 | 48% | 38% — 57% |
| India | 87 | 2% | 1% — 8% |
| Somalia | 77 | 84% | 75% — 91% |
| Bangladesh | 66 | 12% | 6% — 22% |
| Sierra Leone | 64 | 55% | 43% — 66% |
| Afghanistan | 62 | 79% | 67% — 87% |
| Pakistan | 60 | 12% | 6% — 22% |
| Haiti | 53 | 2% | <1% — 10% |
| Colombia | 52 | 12% | 5% — 23% |
| El Salvador | 48 | 0% | 0% — 7% |
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.
How long decided cases took
from the NTA to the decision
4 mohalf of cases: 3—6 modetailshidehalf of cases: 3—6 mo
How long decided cases took
from the NTA to the decision
- Cases decided
- 2,621
- Half of cases
- 3—6 mo
| Decided in | cases | the case ran, median | half of cases, mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026 | 40 | 16 mo | 10—25 |
| FY2005 | 96 | 6 mo | 4—7 |
| FY2004 | 115 | 4 mo | 3—6 |
| FY2003 | 157 | 4 mo | 3—5 |
| FY2002 | 277 | 4 mo | 3—5 |
| FY2001 | 296 | 4 mo | 3—5 |
| FY2000 | 372 | 4 mo | 3—5 |
| FY1999 | 311 | 4 mo | 3—5 |
| FY1998 | 351 | 3 mo | 3—4 |
| FY1997 | 103 | 2 mo | 2—3 |
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
limited data · proceedings in the queue: 164
11 mohalf of proceedings: 3—31 monationwide 34 modetailshidehalf of proceedings: 3—31 mo
How long undecided cases have already waited
from the NTA to the data cutoff
limited data · proceedings in the queue: 164
- Proceedings in the queue
- 164
- Half of proceedings
- 3—31 mo
- Nationwide
- 34 mo · half: 25—45 mo
- Hearing set after the cutoff
- 98.8% (95.7% — 99.7%) · 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
limited data · cases with a date set: 161
17 dhalf of cases: 9—31 dnationwide 7 modetailshidehalf of cases: 9—31 d
When the nearest hearing is set
from the data cutoff to the nearest hearing
limited data · cases with a date set: 161
- Cases with a date set
- 161
- Half of cases
- 9—31 d
- Nationwide
- 7 mo · half: 2—15 mo
| What is set | cases | median | vs. nationwide | a quarter longer | over a year out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Master hearing | 110 | 16 d | nationwide 6 mo | 29 d | 0.0%0.0% — 3.4% |
| Individual hearing | 54 | 39 d | nationwide 11 mo | 2 mo | 0.0%<0.1% — 6.6% |
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
limited data · hearings followed by an individual hearing: 181
3 mohalf: 31 d — 4 monationwide 11 modetailshidehalf: 31 d — 4 mo
From a master calendar hearing to the individual hearing
from a master calendar hearing to the one set after it
limited data · hearings followed by an individual hearing: 181
- Master calendar hearings in the year
- 1,747
- Followed by an individual hearing
- 10.4% (9.0% — 11.9%) · 181 of 1,747
- To the individual hearing, half of cases
- 31 d — 4 mo
- Nationwide
- 11 mo · half: 2—24 mo
- A master calendar slot holds 3 cases at once, and the busiest one this year held 13; an individual hearing slot holds 1.
- On a master calendar day 8 cases in all are called before the judge, and on the busiest day of the year, 22.
| What was scheduled next | hearings | share | median gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| An individual hearing | 181 | 10.4%9.0% — 11.9%14.7% nationwide | 3 mo |
| Another master calendar | 1,263 | 72.3%70.1% — 74.3%52.9% nationwide | 28 d |
| Nothing: the proceeding is over | 303 | 17.3%15.6% — 19.2%27.5% nationwide | — |
| Nothing: no hearing set yet | 0 | 0.0%0.0% — 0.2%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
limited data · cases moved here: 161
43 dhalf of cases: 34—57 dnationwide 9 modetailshidehalf of cases: 34—57 d
Wait for a first hearing after moving here
from arrival here to the first hearing
limited data · cases moved here: 161
- Cases moved here
- 161
- Half of cases
- 34—57 d
- Nationwide
- 9 mo · half: 3—19 mo
- From the last hearing at the former court to the first here
- 17 mo · nationwide 13 mo
- Between two ordinary hearings here
- 55 d · nationwide 5 mo
- 4 of 161 arrivals have no hearing set here yet.
Over the same period 283 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.
1% of proceedings ended in absentia — 323 of 31,730.
- The whole court1% (31,730)
- All U.S. courts19% (11,588,297)
| Fiscal year | Proceedings | In absentia | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2021 | 278 | 2 | 1% |
| FY2022 | 165 | 3 | 2% |
| FY2023 | 194 | 1 | 1% |
| FY2024 | 292 | 1 | 0% |
| FY2025 | 383 | 2 | 1% |
| FY2026partial | 403 | 2 | 0% |
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.
60 bond decisions in September 2025 — August 2026; an amount was set in 13 of them. 100% are attached by a custody hearing.
An amount was set fewer than 25 times — 13 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 202622% (60)
- The whole court, October 2021 — August 202522% (9)
- 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.
1,728 motions decided in October 2021 — August 2026, 530 of them in the last twelve months. 83% are attached to the judge by the nearest hearing.
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.
Years below the 30 threshold: 2. They are not shown, and the line breaks there.
Show the numbers
| Fiscal year | Volume | Share | Nationwide |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026incomplete | 110 | 81%73% — 87% | 55% |
| FY2025 | 103 | 89%82% — 94% | 71% |
| FY2024 | 42 | 98%88% — 100% | 80% |
| Motion | Decidednow / before | GrantedSeptember 2025 — August 2026 | BeforeOctober 2021 — August 2025 | Nationallynow / before |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 121178 | 83%75% — 88% | 89%84% — 93% | 56%77% |
| Motion for Change of Venue | 13264 | — | 94%91% — 97% | 86%95% |
| Motion to Withdraw as Counsel | 93101 | 96%89% — 98% | 100%96% — >99% | 91%88% |
| Other motion | 83104 | 93%85% — 97% | 89%82% — 94% | 68%75% |
| Motion to Substitute Counsel | 2293 | — | 100%96% — >99% | 97%96% |
| Motion for Telephonic Appearance | 1289 | — | 90%82% — 95% | 81%86% |
| Motion to Terminate | 2570 | — | 49%37% — 60% | 59%71% |
| Motion for Extension of Time to File a Document | 2535 | — | 89%74% — 95% | 80%89% |
| Motion to accept late filed documents | 1336 | — | 81%65% — 90% | 86%90% |
| Motion for Administrative Closure | 1435 | — | 80%64% — 90% | 36%76% |
| Motion to Reopen | 1038 | — | 58%42% — 72% | 45%67% |
| Motion to Recalendar | 436 | — | 94%82% — 98% | 85%88% |
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 2,146 hearings with a stated reason in September 2025 — August 2026, 1,716 were adjourned (80%).
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
| Fiscal year | Volume | Median days, quartiles below | Nationwide |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026incomplete | 1,543 | 28 d14 d — 56 d | 93 d |
| FY2025 | 1,782 | 42 d28 d — 63 d | 161 d |
| FY2024 | 1,297 | 56 d28 d — 75 d | 146 d |
| FY2023 | 783 | 44 d28 d — 63 d | 132 d |
| FY2022 | 767 | 42 d28 d — 63 d | 120 d |
| Reason | Adjournmentsnow / before | ShareSeptember 2025 — August 2026 | Nationally | Follow-up | Median days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent to seek representation | 349995 | 20.3%18.5% — 22.3%was 22.3% | 9.3%15.3% | 100% | 2828–56was 5699 nationally |
| Preparation - respondent/attorney/representative | 396908 | 23.1%21.1% — 25.1%was 20.4% | 9.1%8.1% | 100% | 2921–56was 5634 nationally |
| Respondent in custody (DHS/HHS/IHP) not presented | 340840 | 19.8%18.0% — 21.8%was 18.9% | 0.7%0.4% | 95% | 2813–36was 2814 nationally |
| Other respondent/respondent's attorney/representative request | 113334 | 6.6%5.5% — 7.9%was 7.5% | 2.8%2.9% | 99% | 5628–77was 5962 nationally |
| MC to IC - merits hearing | 134265 | 7.8%6.6% — 9.2%was 5.9% | 12.0%10.2% | 100% | 11146–140was 90309 nationally |
| IJ leave | 35340 | 2.0%1.5% — 2.8%was 7.6% | 5.6%5.7% | 100% | 2820–42was 28109 nationally |
| Data Entry Error | 65137 | 3.8%3.0% — 4.8%was 3.1% | 4.0%4.3% | 89% | 80–28was 2814 nationally |
| IJ completion at hearing | 6249 | 3.6%2.8% — 4.6%was 1.1% | 8.3%4.5% | 17% | 80–28was 828 nationally |
| Docket management (postpone hearing) | 4760 | 2.7%2.1% — 3.6%was 1.3% | 9.7%8.3% | 100% | 152–77was 42205 nationally |
| Technical malfunction (not video) | 1679 | —was 1.8% | 0.2%0.4% | — | — |
| To allow for scheduling of priority case | 2057 | —was 1.3% | 5.4%2.4% | — | — |
| IJ reassignment | 3735 | 2.2%1.6% — 3.0%was 0.8% | 14.2%10.5% | 88% | 500–91was 0134 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.
| Filed by | Appeals | Decision stood | Sent back | Overturned | Closed without merits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | 7,263 | 80% | 8% | 1% | 11% |
| nationally | 712,355 | 74% | 13% | 1% | 11% |
| Government (DHS) | 178 | 34% | 23% | 28% | 16% |
| nationally | 56,049 | 17% | 56% | 9% | 17% |
There are also appeals of other kinds, not counted in this table: MTR BIA — 1,629, Appeal of IJ MTR — 308, Bond Appeal — 116, Circuit Court Remand — 77, Interlocutory Appeal — 49.
How often decisions are appealed
| Fiscal year | Granted | Appealed by the government | Denied | Appealed by the respondent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2021 | 0 | — (1.6%) | 5 | 60% (68.2%) |
| FY2022 | 0 | — (0.6%) | 3 | 0% (69.6%) |
| FY2023 | 0 | — (0.8%) | 4 | 100% (66.0%) |
| FY2024 | 0 | — (1.9%) | 13 | 23% (58.6%) |
| FY2025 | 0 | — (8.1%) | 12 | 0% (64.6%) |
| FY2026 | 2 | 0% (8.8%) | 38 | 34% (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: 27.
Fewer than 50 appeals decided — 27 in all. There is nothing to state a share from: referral is a rare event, and on so few the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges. Nationally 4.1% of appeals are referred.
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, October 2021 — August 202514% (98)
- All U.S. courts4% (31,254)
By who filed the appeal
| Filed by | Appealsnow / before | ReferredSeptember 2025 — August 2026 | BeforeOctober 2021 — August 2025 | Nationally |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | 2691 | — | 12.1%6.9% — 20.4% | 2.6%7.2% |
| Government (DHS) | 15 | — | — | 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: 8. Unfinished ones are not counted here.
Fewer than 30 completed second rounds — 8 in all. There is nothing to state a share on: at that count the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges. Nationally 17.5% of second rounds end in protection.
Nationally the same judge runs the second round in 45% of cases. 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 the second rounds ended
| Outcome | Cases | The whole court | Nationally |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal, but withholding or CAT granted | 2 | 25.0% | 2.2% |
| Removal, denial | 3 | 37.5% | 29.6% |
| Proceeding terminated | 2 | 25.0% | 36.9% |
| Administrative closure | 1 | 12.5% | 10.9% |
By who filed the appeal
| Filed by | Cases | Protection granted | Proceeding terminated | Nationally |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | 7 | — | — | 19.7% |
| Government (DHS) | 1 | — | — | 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.
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 — 1
| Judge | Decisions | Granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ouslander, Charles | 560 | 19% | 16% — 22% |
Worked here before — 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abrams, Steven R.Not hearing cases | 2,579 | 41% | 39% — 43% |
| Miller, Joe D.Not hearing cases | 180 | 28% | 22% — 35% |
| Levinsky, Mitchell A.Not hearing cases | 158 | 16% | 11% — 23% |
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. Napanoch Immigration Court. EOIR Case Data, U.S. DOJ FOIA Library, release 2026-08, data through 2026-08-31. https://asylumbeacon.com/en/court/ULS
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.