Judge Cuevas, Carlos

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: July 6, 2020
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: November 14, 2024

Courts worked at: 6

Worked here before

CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT1986—2020 · 55,912 hearings
EL PASO — IMMIGRATION COURT2014—2014 · 26 hearings
OMAHA — IMMIGRATION COURT1992—2009 · 9,347 hearings
KANSAS CITY — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—2004 · 36 hearings
FORT SNELLING — IMMIGRATION COURT1991—1998 · 1,958 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1992—1996 · 1,569 hearings

The periods overlap, and that is not an error: a judge hears cases at a new court while still closing out old ones at the previous one. Each row answers "when did this judge work here", not "from when to when did they serve here".

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.

49%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,199 decisions · FY1987–FY2016

95% interval: 47% — 51%

granted:: 1,085
denied:: 1,114

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1987–FY2016 — not what happens in the court today. Asylum rules and the mix of cases have changed since.

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

This judge49% (2,199)
The whole court — CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT42% (35,363)
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.

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (1): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table

Grant rate by fiscal year
Period	decisions	granted	95% interval
FY2016	15	33%	15% — 58%
FY2015	32	72%	55% — 84%
FY2014	59	71%	59% — 81%
FY2013	47	51%	37% — 65%
FY2012	86	67%	57% — 76%
FY2011	57	37%	26% — 50%
FY2010	56	59%	46% — 71%
FY2009	95	41%	32% — 51%
FY2008	107	44%	35% — 53%
FY2007	97	51%	41% — 60%
FY2006	107	58%	48% — 67%
FY2005	137	52%	44% — 60%
FY2004	136	36%	28% — 44%
FY2003	119	43%	34% — 52%
FY2002	125	38%	30% — 47%
FY2001	128	59%	50% — 67%
FY2000	163	60%	52% — 67%
FY1999	129	43%	35% — 52%
FY1998	152	49%	42% — 57%
FY1997	97	62%	52% — 71%
FY1996	94	39%	30% — 49%
FY1995	126	39%	31% — 48%
FY1994	33	36%	22% — 53%
FY1987	2	50%	9% — 91%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
CHINA	253	60%	54% — 66%
GUATEMALA	214	13%	9% — 18%
ALBANIA	108	64%	54% — 72%
EL SALVADOR	90	14%	9% — 23%
Former Countries	80	51%	40% — 62%
ROMANIA	66	38%	27% — 50%
RUSSIA	61	62%	50% — 73%
PAKISTAN	60	38%	27% — 51%
INDIA	60	23%	14% — 35%
IRAQ	59	75%	62% — 84%
UKRAINE	56	46%	34% — 59%
SOMALIA	55	87%	76% — 94%
ETHIOPIA	52	67%	54% — 78%
COLOMBIA	52	58%	44% — 70%
BULGARIA	48	40%	27% — 54%

How long a case takes

How long it took from service of the NTA to the decision on the application, for the cases this judge has already finished.

24 mo

median

half of cases: 13—40 mo

based on 2,199 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2015	32	52 mo	39—66
FY2014	59	42 mo	34—55
FY2013	47	45 mo	29—65
FY2012	86	51 mo	32—62
FY2011	57	38 mo	30—51
FY2010	56	56 mo	32—75
FY2009	95	51 mo	28—76
FY2008	107	31 mo	15—52
FY2007	97	28 mo	19—58
FY2006	107	38 mo	23—49

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 with no decision yet. A different figure from the duration of completed cases: quick cases leave the queue first, so the long ones accumulate among those still waiting.

No undecided cases in this release.

What became of appeals to the BIA

An immigration judge's decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. This is what the Board did with those appeals. A high share of reversals and remands tells a different story than a low grant rate alone.

What became of appeals to the BIA
BIA decision	Appeals
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision	740
Remand	518
Denied	316
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	179
Summary Affirmance	175
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	100
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	91
Withdrawal of Appeal	78
Other	64
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	63
Termination	51
Summarily Dismiss	47
Sustain	42
Granted	35
Temporary Protected Status	26
Background Check Remand	21
Dismiss Soriano	16
Moot Bond	12
Dismiss as Untimely	10
Grant with no Remand	9
Continued	7
Administratively Closed	6
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	5
Deferred Enforced Departure	5
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	4
Granted Soriano	3
Terminate-DHS PD	3
Denied Soriano	2
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	2
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	1
MB	1
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	1

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.