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

LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT

LOS ANGELES CA

26%

Asylum grant rate

of 102,953 decisions · FY1967–FY2026

95% interval: 26% — 27%

granted:
27,147
denied:
75,806
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. 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

  • LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT26% (102,953)
  • 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%198319942002201020182026

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 (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
FY2026partial4,1136%5% — 7%
FY20251,77428%26% — 30%
FY20241,50250%47% — 52%
FY20231,91454%52% — 56%
FY20221,51948%46% — 51%
FY20211,38434%32% — 37%
FY20204,16520%19% — 22%
FY20194,78924%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%

How long a case takes

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

20 mo

median

half of cases: 8—42 mo

based on 102,979 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY20264,11331 mo25—38
FY20251,77429 mo21—43
FY20241,50236 mo20—70
FY20231,91458 mo46—88
FY20221,51962 mo43—93
FY20211,38449 mo32—70
FY20204,16530 mo14—51
FY20194,78939 mo26—56
FY20182,13344 mo30—67
FY20171,67534 mo25—57

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.

28,082
cases waiting
38 mo
already waited, median
  • Half have waited between 28 mo and 122 mo.
  • 26,398 (94%) 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%Walton, Richard D.: 18%, n=4153Stancill, Christine E: 42%, n=3578Fong, Thomas: 10%, n=3461Daniel, Roy J.: 4%, n=3372Latimore, Jan D.: 20%, n=3261Hrycenko, Ingrid K.: 22%, n=3196Martin, William J.: 19%, n=3101Naselow-Nahas, Tara: 10%, n=2780Law, Philip S.: 17%, n=2638Bank, 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=2300Gastley, Harry L.: 16%, n=1982Dunkel-Bradley, Dorothy: 35%, n=1959Francis, Leon J.: 17%, n=1876Vahid-Tehrani, Gita: 58%, n=1868Simons, Anita L.: 30%, n=1854Chon, Hye Y.: 18%, n=1845Gembacz, Gilbert T.: 38%, n=1786Juelle, Carlos R.: 12%, n=1721Neumeister, William David: 65%, n=1600Seligman, Darlene R.: 13%, n=1589Sitgraves, D.D.: 38%, n=1539Bither, Christine A.: 18%, n=1510Renner, Renee L.: 41%, n=1506Benton, Jimmie Lee: 14%, n=1479Tabaddor, A. Ashley: 26%, n=1455Behne, Audra R.: 20%, n=1438Costa, Philip J.: 41%, n=1402Bronzina, Isabel: 25%, n=1362O'Connor, Lee: 17%, n=1336Bakke Varzandeh, Joyce: 41%, n=1267Daw, Alison E: 63%, n=1237Pierce, Curtis F.: 32%, n=1174Giattina, Anthony T.: 21%, n=1106Ruane, Rachel Ann: 11%, n=1009Ohata, Ronald N.: 8%, n=994Hong, Andrea: 33%, n=978Miller, Nancy E.: 24%, n=924Patti, Sebastian T.: 55%, n=917Jasso, Jaime: 22%, n=893Mathon, Lauren R.: 33%, n=860Perry, Anne Kristina: 33%, n=803McDonald, Kristofer R.: 16%, n=790Taylor, John D.: 34%, n=777Little, Monica M.: 38%, n=724Waterloo, Jason R.: 31%, n=720Siebert, Andrea: 40%, n=707Rooyani, Rodin: 28%, n=691Chugh, Amit: 45%, n=685Bass, Lori R.: 41%, n=673Desai, Jankhana: 27%, n=666SS: 26%, n=646Del Bene, Charles A.: 36%, n=639Huddleston, Natalie: 20%, n=608Park, Jeannette Lim: 37%, n=587Barcus, E. Mark: 48%, n=584Proctor, George W.: 55%, n=574Villegas, Veronica S.: 37%, n=524Malvin, Daniel H.: 23%, n=519Virchis, Bridget: 31%, n=511Allen, Janette L.: 42%, n=424Hong, J. Traci: 53%, n=367Murad, Yvan E.: 21%, n=359Mcdermott, Patrick T.: 41%, n=332Lee, Edward: 43%, n=304Miller, Jeffrey S.: 10%, n=303Gadson-Andrews, Ashley: 34%, n=289Herrington, Robert: 35%, n=228RBR: 4%, n=223Perez, Irma: 45%, n=184Callaghan, Diana: 2%, n=169Fellrath, 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 E3,57842%40% — 44%
Latimore, Jan D.nothing scheduled3,26120%19% — 22%
Simons, Anita L.1,85430%28% — 32%
Chon, Hye Y.1,84518%16% — 19%
Juelle, Carlos R.1,72112%11% — 14%
Behne, Audra R.1,43820%18% — 22%
Costa, Philip J.1,40341%38% — 43%
Bakke Varzandeh, Joyce1,26841%38% — 43%
Pierce, Curtis F.1,17432%29% — 35%
Ruane, Rachel Ann1,01011%9% — 13%
McDonald, Kristofer R.79016%14% — 19%
Rooyani, Rodin69128%24% — 31%
Chugh, Amit68745%41% — 48%
Desai, Jankhana66627%23% — 30%
Barcus, E. Marknothing scheduled58448%44% — 52%
Villegas, Veronica S.52537%33% — 41%
Malvin, Daniel H.52023%20% — 27%
Murad, Yvan E.35921%17% — 25%
Perez, Irma18445%38% — 52%
Callaghan, Diana1692%1% — 5%

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 COURT2,78010%9% — 12%
Francis, Leon J.SANTA ANA — IMMIGRATION COURT1,87617%15% — 18%
Neumeister, William DavidADELANTO — IMMIGRATION COURT1,60065%63% — 67%
Daw, Alison ESACRAMENTO — IMMIGRATION COURT1,23763%60% — 66%
Hong, AndreaLOS ANGELES — IMMIGRATION COURT97833%30% — 36%
Miller, Nancy E.LOS ANGELES — IMMIGRATION COURT92424%21% — 27%
Patti, Sebastian T.CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT91755%52% — 58%
Jasso, JaimeLOS ANGELES — IMMIGRATION COURT89322%19% — 25%
Perry, Anne KristinaIMPERIAL — IMMIGRATION COURT80333%29% — 36%
Siebert, AndreaLOS ANGELES — IMMIGRATION COURT70740%37% — 44%
Huddleston, NatalieFLORENCE — IMMIGRATION COURT60820%17% — 23%
Park, Jeannette LimVAN NUYS — IMMIGRATION COURT58737%33% — 41%
Virchis, BridgetLOS ANGELES — IMMIGRATION COURT51231%27% — 35%
Allen, Janette L.EL PASO — IMMIGRATION COURT42442%38% — 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 cases3,19622%21% — 24%
Martin, William J.not hearing cases3,10219%18% — 21%
Law, Philip S.not hearing cases2,63817%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 cases2,30015%14% — 17%
Gastley, Harry L.not hearing cases1,98216%14% — 17%
Dunkel-Bradley, Dorothynot hearing cases1,95935%33% — 37%
Vahid-Tehrani, Gitanothing scheduled1,86958%56% — 60%
Gembacz, Gilbert T.not hearing cases1,78638%36% — 41%
Seligman, Darlene R.not hearing cases1,58913%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%
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%
Waterloo, Jason R.nothing scheduled72031%27% — 34%
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 scheduled28934%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, 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.