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

West Los Angeles Immigration Court

Los Angeles, CA

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.

5245 Pacific Concourse Dr #100
Los Angeles, CA 90045
(310) 335-2100
2 more addresses
  • 300 N.Los Angeles St B 118, Los Angeles, CA 90012 · (310) 335-2100 · 0 hearing records in 12 months
  • 606 South Olive St., 15th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90014 · (213) 894-2811 · 0 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.

Where cases heard here come from

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

45 more states account for 1,672 cases in total.

In total the court appears in 1,611 ZIP codes and leads in 104.

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.

26%

Asylum grant rate

of 103,411 decisions · FY1967–FY2026

95% interval: 26% — 27%

granted:
27,189
denied:
76,222
other protection: withholding and the Convention Against Torture:
26

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

  • West Los Angeles Immigration Court26% (103,411)
  • 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%198319942002201020182026

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
FY2026partial4,5196%6% — 7%
FY20251,80027%25% — 29%
FY20241,52149%47% — 52%
FY20231,91554%51% — 56%
FY20221,52248%46% — 51%
FY20211,38534%32% — 37%
FY20204,16620%19% — 22%
FY20194,79024%23% — 25%
FY20182,13330%28% — 32%
FY20171,67429%27% — 31%
FY20161,23429%27% — 32%
FY20151,46734%32% — 36%
FY20141,93040%38% — 42%
FY20132,10544%42% — 46%
FY20122,08944%42% — 46%
FY20112,41946%44% — 48%
FY20102,55846%44% — 48%
FY20092,08939%37% — 41%
FY20081,86835%32% — 37%
FY20072,21738%36% — 40%
FY20062,73042%40% — 44%
FY20052,92138%37% — 40%
FY20043,40938%36% — 40%
FY20033,76235%33% — 36%
FY20023,11736%34% — 38%
FY20012,43539%37% — 41%
FY20002,14831%29% — 33%
FY19993,10029%27% — 31%
FY19985,36612%11% — 13%
FY19976,4669%8% — 9%
FY19968,1665%4% — 5%
FY19953,3007%7% — 8%
FY199498120%17% — 22%
FY19931,04822%20% — 25%
FY19921,40513%11% — 15%
FY19911,00020%17% — 22%
FY19901,81025%23% — 27%
FY19891,27524%22% — 27%
FY19881,54318%16% — 20%
FY19878935%4% — 7%
FY19868003%2% — 5%
FY19852706%4% — 9%
FY1984375%1% — 18%
FY1983157%1% — 30%
FY1982911%2% — 44%
FY198110%0% — 79%
FY197910%0% — 79%
FY197810%0% — 79%
FY197310%0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
El Salvador18,0498%7% — 8%
Guatemala15,5397%6% — 7%
China15,02752%51% — 53%
Mexico12,0375%5% — 5%
Armenia5,60747%46% — 49%
Honduras3,9259%8% — 10%
Nicaragua3,60418%17% — 20%
Indonesia2,98032%30% — 34%
Iran2,92655%53% — 56%
India2,50142%40% — 44%
Russia1,83765%63% — 67%
Peru1,40418%17% — 21%
Philippines1,4038%7% — 10%
Egypt1,38074%72% — 77%
Colombia1,33519%17% — 21%

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

20 mo
half of cases: 8—42 mo
Cases decided
103,437
Half of cases
8—42 mo
NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided incasesthe case ran, medianhalf of cases, mo
FY20264,51931 mo26—39
FY20251,80029 mo21—43
FY20241,52135 mo20—70
FY20231,91558 mo46—88
FY20221,52261 mo43—93
FY20211,38549 mo32—70
FY20204,16630 mo14—51
FY20194,79039 mo26—56
FY20182,13344 mo30—67
FY20171,67534 mo25—57

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

39 mo
1.2 times longer than nationwidenationwide 34 mo
half of proceedings: 29—124 mo
Proceedings in the queue
27,698
Half of proceedings
29—124 mo
Nationwide
34 mo · half: 25—45 mo
Hearing set after the cutoff
93.6% (93.3% — 93.9%) · 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

4 mo
1.9 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 7 mo
half of cases: 43 d — 8 mo
Cases with a date set
25,846
Half of cases
43 d — 8 mo
Nationwide
7 mo · half: 2—15 mo
More than a year out
11.6% (11.3% — 12.0%) · nationwide 32.1%
Time to the nearest hearing by hearing type and by custody
What is setcasesmedianvs. nationwidea quarter longerover a year out
Master hearing11,67556 d3 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 6 mo3 mo2.4%2.1% — 2.6%
Individual hearing14,9457 mo1.6 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 11 mo11 mo19.8%19.1% — 20.4%

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

12 mo
1.1 times longer than nationwidenationwide 11 mo
half: 6—17 mo
Master calendar hearings in the year
59,480
Followed by an individual hearing
19.4% (19.1% — 19.7%) · 11,524 of 59,480
To the individual hearing, half of cases
6—17 mo
Nationwide
11 mo · half: 2—24 mo
  • A master calendar slot holds 7 cases at once, and the busiest one this year held 114; an individual hearing slot holds 3.
  • On a master calendar day 23 cases in all are called before the judge, and on the busiest day of the year, 156.
What was scheduled after a master calendar hearing: share of hearings and median gap
What was scheduled nexthearingssharemedian gap
An individual hearing11,52419.4%19.1% — 19.7%14.7% nationwide12 mo
Another master calendar30,69051.6%51.2% — 52.0%52.9% nationwide3 mo
Nothing: the proceeding is over16,44927.7%27.3% — 28.0%27.5% nationwide—
Nothing: no hearing set yet8171.4%1.3% — 1.5%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

6 mo
1.5 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 9 mo
half of cases: 3—9 mo
Cases moved here
11,426
Half of cases
3—9 mo
Nationwide
9 mo · half: 3—19 mo
From the last hearing at the former court to the first here
7 mo · nationwide 13 mo
Between two ordinary hearings here
4 mo · nationwide 5 mo
  • 80 of 11,426 arrivals have no hearing set here yet.
Time to the first hearing after a move, by custody status
Casesmovedmedianvs. nationwidea quarter longer
Person detained1467 mo13 times longer than nationwidenationwide 16 d11 mo
Not detained11,2806 mo1.7 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 10 mo9 mo

Over the same period 17,117 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.

20% of proceedings ended in absentia — 110,880 of 547,498.

  • The whole court20% (547,498)
  • All U.S. courts19% (11,588,297)
Share of in absentia decisions by fiscal year
Fiscal yearProceedingsIn absentiaShare
FY20219,5381562%
FY202221,6334882%
FY202329,9123,48312%
FY202426,6574,12815%
FY202523,0569,24840%
FY2026partial20,0198,10640%

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.

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.

157,767 motions decided in October 2021 — August 2026, 43,431 of them in the last twelve months. 63% are attached to the judge by the nearest hearing.

0%50%100%76%78%83%82%72%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
FY2026incomplete2,98572%70% — 73%55%
FY20252,55382%81% — 84%71%
FY20241,99383%81% — 84%80%
FY20232,96678%77% — 80%79%
FY20223,10476%74% — 77%79%
Share of motions granted, by type
MotionDecidednow / beforeGrantedSeptember 2025 — August 2026BeforeOctober 2021 — August 2025Nationallynow / before
Motion to Dismiss37727,97483%79% — 86%98%98% — 98%80%96%
Motion to Recalendar12,7958,02272%72% — 73%90%90% — 91%85%88%
Motion for Change of Venue3,83416,20291%90% — 92%96%95% — 96%86%95%
Motion for Continuance3,26810,33372%71% — 74%79%79% — 80%56%77%
Motion to Substitute Counsel3,1769,55096%95% — 97%97%96% — 97%97%96%
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel4,7586,94988%87% — 89%81%80% — 82%91%88%
Motion to Terminate2,8846,70570%69% — 72%82%81% — 83%59%71%
Motion for Video Appearance2,3664,52268%66% — 70%72%71% — 74%69%79%
Motion to Reopen1,3995,02473%70% — 75%88%87% — 89%45%67%
Motion to accept late filed documents1,7193,93678%76% — 80%88%87% — 89%86%90%
Motion for Administrative Closure6364,14344%41% — 48%87%86% — 88%36%76%
Motion for Telephonic Appearance683,85574%62% — 83%86%85% — 87%81%86%

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 77,174 hearings with a stated reason in September 2025 — August 2026, 55,225 were adjourned (72%).

0 d100 d200 d105 d98 d132 d139 d114 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
FY2026incomplete49,804114 d42 d — 238 d93 d
FY202562,312139 d56 d — 258 d161 d
FY202460,903132 d70 d — 230 d146 d
FY202368,86098 d39 d — 157 d132 d
FY202296,227105 d22 d — 175 d120 d
Adjournment reasons: share of all adjournments and median days to the next hearing
ReasonAdjournmentsnow / beforeShareSeptember 2025 — August 2026NationallyFollow-upMedian days
IJ reassignment4,72345,7948.6%8.3% — 8.8%was 16.2%14.2%10.5%86%409–117was 71134 nationally
MC to IC - merits hearing9,27228,48316.8%16.5% — 17.1%was 10.1%12.0%10.2%>99%377189–520was 287309 nationally
Court closure/postponement53532,9311.0%0.9% — 1.1%was 11.6%0.6%5.2%99%7035–130was 14344 nationally
Respondent to seek representation3,61026,6926.5%6.3% — 6.7%was 9.4%9.3%15.3%99%10863–160was 12199 nationally
IJ leave3,64918,5606.6%6.4% — 6.8%was 6.6%5.6%5.7%98%6428–147was 100109 nationally
Preparation - respondent/attorney/representative5,40016,6089.8%9.5% — 10.0%was 5.9%9.1%8.1%>99%10163–160was 11034 nationally
Docket management (postpone hearing)4,10217,7377.4%7.2% — 7.6%was 6.3%9.7%8.3%96%14160–240was 174205 nationally
Other respondent/respondent's attorney/representative request4,62513,2018.4%8.1% — 8.6%was 4.7%2.8%2.9%99%10544–169was 10662 nationally
Prosecutorial Discretion012,849—was 4.5%<0.1%1.0%——
IJ completion at hearing1,9968,1943.6%3.5% — 3.8%was 2.9%8.3%4.5%13%7212–154was 4328 nationally
Data Entry Error1,3088,5392.4%2.2% — 2.5%was 3.0%4.0%4.3%76%447–159was 3014 nationally
To allow for scheduling of priority case2,8616,3585.2%5.0% — 5.4%was 2.2%5.4%2.4%99%15265–251was 146202 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
Respondent90,21873%14%2%10%
nationally712,35574%13%1%11%
Government (DHS)5,27824%54%7%15%
nationally56,04917%56%9%17%

There are also appeals of other kinds, not counted in this table: MTR BIA — 39,714, Appeal of IJ MTR — 10,359, Circuit Court Remand — 5,366, Bond Appeal — 1,008, Interlocutory Appeal — 674, Bond MTR Reo — 1.

How often decisions are appealed

Share of the judge's decisions that were appealed
Fiscal yearGrantedAppealed by the governmentDeniedAppealed by the respondent
FY20214743% (1.6%)91183% (68.2%)
FY20227361% (0.6%)78668% (69.6%)
FY20231,0291.3% (0.8%)88656% (66.0%)
FY20247492% (1.9%)77249% (58.6%)
FY202549114% (8.1%)1,30965.2% (64.6%)
FY20262912% (8.8%)4,22862.0% (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: 796.

3.8%

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

30 of 796 referred

95% interval 2.7% — 5.3%

before (October 2021 — August 2025) — 8.5%

nationally 4.1%

0.0%50.0%100.0%13.1%8.3%3.8%3.8%3.7%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
FY2026incomplete7273.7%2.6% — 5.3%4.1%
FY20257173.8%2.6% — 5.4%5.5%
FY20249283.8%2.7% — 5.2%5.9%
FY20231,4898.3%7.0% — 9.8%8.4%
FY20221,66713.1%11.6% — 14.8%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 20264% (796)
  • The whole court, October 2021 — August 20258% (4,732)
  • 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
Respondent7814,5343.1%2.1% — 4.5%7.5%6.8% — 8.3%2.6%7.2%
Government (DHS)15194—32.0%25.8% — 38.8%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: 1,544. Unfinished ones are not counted here.

14.8%

of them ended in protection being granted

protection in 228 of 1,544

95% interval 13.1% — 16.6%

nationally 17.5%

0.0%50.0%100.0%19.5%11.3%16.0%15.2%10.4%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
FY2026incomplete7710.4%5.4% — 19.2%11.8%
FY202511215.2%9.7% — 23.0%17.5%
FY202431316.0%12.3% — 20.4%17.7%
FY202361711.3%9.1% — 14.1%18.1%
FY202242519.5%16.0% — 23.6%19.8%

The same judge runs the second round in 492 of 1,544 cases — 32%. 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 court15% (1,544)
  • 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 granted22814.8%17.5%
Removal, but withholding or CAT granted140.9%2.2%
Removal, denial23415.2%29.6%
Proceeding terminated87156.4%36.9%
Voluntary departure191.2%2.5%
Administrative closure17411.3%10.9%
Other40.3%0.4%

By who filed the appeal

Second-round outcome by who filed the appeal
Filed byCasesProtection grantedProceeding terminatedNationally
Respondent99613.9%11.8% — 16.1%57.2%54.1% — 60.3%19.7%
Government (DHS)54116.5%13.6% — 19.8%55.3%51.1% — 59.4%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%Walton, Richard D.: 18%, n=4153Stancill, Christine E: 42%, n=3582Fong, Thomas: 10%, n=3461Daniel, Roy J.: 4%, n=3372Latimore, Jan D.: 20%, n=3262Hrycenko, Ingrid K.: 22%, n=3195Martin, William J.: 19%, n=3101Naselow-Nahas, Tara: 10%, n=2815Law, Philip S.: 17%, n=2637Bank, Ira: 28%, n=2606Segal, Jay: 7%, n=2604Peters, Rose: 36%, n=2602Gordon, Nathan W.: 21%, n=2603Einhorn, Bruce J.: 31%, n=2383Reichenberg, Margaret R.: 18%, n=2341Mills, Miriam K.: 31%, n=2312Romig, Jeffrey L.: 15%, n=2302Gastley, Harry L.: 16%, n=1982Dunkel-Bradley, Dorothy: 35%, n=1959Simons, Anita L.: 29%, n=1923Francis, Leon J.: 16%, n=1910Vahid-Tehrani, Gita: 58%, n=1869Chon, Hye Y.: 17%, n=1862Gembacz, Gilbert T.: 38%, n=1786Juelle, Carlos R.: 12%, n=1773Neumeister, William David: 65%, n=1601Seligman, Darlene R.: 13%, n=1588Sitgraves, D.D.: 38%, n=1539Bither, Christine A.: 18%, n=1510Renner, Renee L.: 41%, n=1506Behne, Audra R.: 19%, n=1502Benton, Jimmie Lee: 14%, n=1479Tabaddor, A. Ashley: 26%, n=1455Costa, Philip J.: 41%, n=1404Bronzina, Isabel: 25%, n=1362O'Connor, Lee: 17%, n=1336Bakke Varzandeh, Joyce: 40%, n=1292Daw, Alison E: 63%, n=1238Pierce, Curtis F.: 31%, n=1201Giattina, Anthony T.: 21%, n=1106Ruane, Rachel Ann: 11%, n=1037Hong, Andrea: 32%, n=1013Ohata, Ronald N.: 8%, n=994Miller, Nancy E.: 24%, n=936Patti, Sebastian T.: 55%, n=920Jasso, Jaime: 22%, n=913Mathon, Lauren R.: 33%, n=860McDonald, Kristofer R.: 16%, n=836Perry, Anne Kristina: 32%, n=813Taylor, John D.: 34%, n=777Little, Monica M.: 38%, n=724Siebert, Andrea: 40%, n=725Waterloo, Jason R.: 31%, n=721Rooyani, Rodin: 27%, n=701Chugh, Amit: 44%, n=690Desai, Jankhana: 26%, n=684Bass, Lori R.: 41%, n=673SS: 26%, n=646Del Bene, Charles A.: 36%, n=639Park, Jeannette Lim: 35%, n=631Huddleston, Natalie: 20%, n=615Barcus, E. Mark: 48%, n=584Proctor, George W.: 55%, n=574Villegas, Veronica S.: 37%, n=548Malvin, Daniel H.: 22%, n=544Virchis, Bridget: 31%, n=512Allen, Janette L.: 42%, n=430Murad, Yvan E.: 21%, n=370Hong, J. Traci: 53%, n=367Mcdermott, Patrick T.: 41%, n=332Lee, Edward: 43%, n=304Miller, Jeffrey S.: 10%, n=303Gadson-Andrews, Ashley: 34%, n=290Callaghan, Diana: 6%, n=249Herrington, Robert: 35%, n=228RBR: 4%, n=223Perez, Irma: 45%, n=185Fellrath, Robert: 14%, n=111Driscoll, John T.: 32%, n=73GI: 6%, n=52Carroll-Tipton, Andrea: 52%, n=5010030010003000Decisions

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 — 20

U.S. immigration judges: volume and asylum grant rate
JudgeDecisionsGranted95% interval
Stancill, Christine E3,58242%40% — 44%
Latimore, Jan D.Nothing scheduled3,26220%19% — 22%
Simons, Anita L.1,92329%27% — 31%
Chon, Hye Y.1,86217%16% — 19%
Juelle, Carlos R.1,77312%10% — 13%
Behne, Audra R.1,50219%18% — 22%
Costa, Philip J.Nothing scheduled1,40541%38% — 43%
Bakke Varzandeh, Joyce1,29340%37% — 43%
Pierce, Curtis F.1,20131%29% — 34%
Ruane, Rachel Ann1,03811%9% — 13%
McDonald, Kristofer R.83616%13% — 18%
Rooyani, Rodin70127%24% — 31%
Chugh, Amit69244%41% — 48%
Desai, Jankhana68426%23% — 29%
Barcus, E. MarkNothing scheduled58448%44% — 52%
Villegas, Veronica S.54937%33% — 41%
Malvin, Daniel H.54522%19% — 26%
Murad, Yvan E.37021%17% — 25%
Callaghan, Diana2496%4% — 10%
Perez, Irma18545%38% — 52%

Moved to another court — 15

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
Naselow-Nahas, TaraDallas Immigration Court2,81510%9% — 12%
Francis, Leon J.Santa Ana Immigration Court1,91016%15% — 18%
Neumeister, William DavidAdelanto Immigration Court1,60165%63% — 67%
Hong, AndreaLos Angeles Immigration Court1,01332%29% — 35%
Miller, Nancy E.Los Angeles Immigration Court93624%21% — 26%
Patti, Sebastian T.Chicago Immigration Court92055%52% — 58%
Jasso, JaimeLos Angeles Immigration Court91322%19% — 25%
Perry, Anne KristinaImperial Immigration Court81332%29% — 36%
Siebert, AndreaLos Angeles Immigration Court72540%36% — 43%
Waterloo, Jason R.Santa Ana Immigration Court72131%27% — 34%
Park, Jeannette LimVan Nuys Immigration Court63135%31% — 39%
Huddleston, NatalieFlorence Immigration Court61520%17% — 23%
Virchis, BridgetLos Angeles Immigration Court51331%27% — 35%
Allen, Janette L.El Paso Immigration Court43042%37% — 47%
Herrington, RobertDallas Immigration Court22835%29% — 41%

Worked here before — 46

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
Walton, Richard D.Not hearing cases4,15318%16% — 19%
Fong, ThomasNot hearing cases3,46210%9% — 11%
Daniel, Roy J.Not hearing cases3,3724%4% — 5%
Hrycenko, Ingrid K.Not hearing cases3,19522%21% — 24%
Martin, William J.Not hearing cases3,10219%18% — 21%
Law, Philip S.Not hearing cases2,63717%16% — 19%
Bank, IraNothing scheduled2,60628%27% — 30%
Segal, JayNot hearing cases2,6047%6% — 8%
Peters, RoseNot hearing cases2,60336%34% — 38%
Gordon, Nathan W.Not hearing cases2,60321%20% — 23%
Einhorn, Bruce J.Not hearing cases2,38331%29% — 33%
Reichenberg, Margaret R.Not hearing cases2,34118%16% — 19%
Mills, Miriam K.Not hearing cases2,31231%29% — 33%
Romig, Jeffrey L.Not hearing cases2,30215%14% — 17%
Gastley, Harry L.Not hearing cases1,98216%14% — 17%
Dunkel-Bradley, DorothyNot hearing cases1,95935%33% — 37%
Vahid-Tehrani, GitaNothing scheduled1,87058%56% — 60%
Gembacz, Gilbert T.Not hearing cases1,78638%36% — 41%
Seligman, Darlene R.Not hearing cases1,58813%12% — 15%
Sitgraves, D.D.Not hearing cases1,54038%35% — 40%
Bither, Christine A.Not hearing cases1,51018%17% — 21%
Renner, Renee L.Not hearing cases1,50741%39% — 44%
Benton, Jimmie LeeNot hearing cases1,47914%12% — 16%
Tabaddor, A. AshleyNot hearing cases1,45726%24% — 28%
Bronzina, IsabelNot hearing cases1,36225%23% — 27%
O'Connor, LeeNothing scheduled1,33617%15% — 19%
Daw, Alison ENothing scheduled1,23863%60% — 66%
Giattina, Anthony T.Not hearing cases1,10621%19% — 23%
Ohata, Ronald N.Not hearing cases9948%6% — 9%
Mathon, Lauren R.Not hearing cases86033%30% — 36%
Taylor, John D.Not hearing cases77734%31% — 37%
Little, Monica M.Not hearing cases72538%34% — 41%
Bass, Lori R.Not hearing cases67441%38% — 45%
Code SS, name missing from the lookup tableNot hearing cases64626%23% — 30%
Del Bene, Charles A.Not hearing cases63936%33% — 40%
Proctor, George W.Not hearing cases57455%51% — 59%
Hong, J. TraciNot hearing cases36753%47% — 58%
Mcdermott, Patrick T.Not hearing cases33241%36% — 46%
Lee, EdwardNothing scheduled30443%37% — 48%
Miller, Jeffrey S.Nothing scheduled30310%7% — 14%
Gadson-Andrews, AshleyNothing scheduled29034%29% — 40%
Code RBR, name missing from the lookup tableNot hearing cases2234%2% — 7%
Fellrath, RobertNot hearing cases11114%8% — 21%
Driscoll, John T.Nothing scheduled7332%22% — 43%
Code GI, name missing from the lookup tableNot hearing cases526%2% — 16%
Carroll-Tipton, AndreaNot hearing cases5052%39% — 65%

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. West Los Angeles Immigration Court. EOIR Case Data, U.S. DOJ FOIA Library, release 2026-08, data through 2026-08-31. https://asylumbeacon.com/en/court/WLA

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.