Judge Copeland, Cary H.

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: December 29, 2006
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: January 7, 2007

Courts worked at: 12

Worked here before

DALLAS — IMMIGRATION COURT1984—2006 · 32,715 hearings
LAREDO — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—2006 · 454 hearings
AURORA — IMMIGRATION COURT2003—2006 · 928 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT1999—2006 · 317 hearings
HARLINGEN — IMMIGRATION COURT2006—2006 · 67 hearings
CONROE — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2006 · 68 hearings
NEWARK — IMMIGRATION COURT2001—2005 · 66 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—2003 · 108 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1999—2003 · 102 hearings
MEMPHIS — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—1998 · 1,601 hearings
ATLANTA — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—1996 · 66 hearings
ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—1996 · 1,135 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.

37%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,260 decisions · FY1985–FY2007

95% interval: 35% — 39%

granted:: 826
denied:: 1,434

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1985–FY2007 — 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 judge37% (2,260)
The whole court — DALLAS — IMMIGRATION COURT19% (19,277)
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 (3): 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
FY2007	23	26%	13% — 46%
FY2006	94	23%	16% — 33%
FY2005	104	22%	15% — 31%
FY2004	143	29%	22% — 37%
FY2003	262	28%	23% — 34%
FY2002	214	38%	32% — 45%
FY2001	171	43%	36% — 50%
FY2000	123	45%	36% — 54%
FY1999	171	34%	27% — 41%
FY1998	196	52%	45% — 58%
FY1997	323	48%	42% — 53%
FY1996	257	36%	30% — 42%
FY1995	175	26%	20% — 33%
FY1987	1	0%	0% — 79%
FY1986	2	0%	0% — 66%
FY1985	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
SOMALIA	257	82%	77% — 86%
EL SALVADOR	167	6%	3% — 11%
ETHIOPIA	157	47%	39% — 55%
GUATEMALA	114	6%	3% — 12%
PAKISTAN	110	17%	11% — 25%
CHINA	86	44%	34% — 55%
CAMEROON	77	40%	30% — 51%
IRAN	66	53%	41% — 65%
ZIMBABWE	58	34%	24% — 47%
ZAIRE	57	67%	54% — 78%
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO	51	20%	11% — 32%
INDIA	51	12%	6% — 23%
ALBANIA	49	24%	15% — 38%
COLOMBIA	47	4%	1% — 14%
BANGLADESH	47	19%	10% — 33%

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.

7 mo

median

half of cases: 4—12 mo

based on 2,260 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2006	94	14 mo	8—33
FY2005	104	17 mo	8—39
FY2004	143	9 mo	5—13
FY2003	262	7 mo	5—11
FY2002	214	7 mo	4—11
FY2001	171	7 mo	4—10
FY2000	123	7 mo	4—11
FY1999	171	9 mo	7—14
FY1998	196	7 mo	5—11
FY1997	323	6 mo	4—11

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	452
Remand	420
Denied	357
Summary Affirmance	267
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	254
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	159
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	122
Sustain	94
Withdrawal of Appeal	94
Termination	88
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	64
Granted	64
Other	56
Summarily Dismiss	56
Temporary Protected Status	37
Background Check Remand	20
Dismiss as Untimely	19
Rejection	16
Grant with no Remand	13
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	11
Dismiss Soriano	10
Moot Bond	8
Continued	8
Terminate-DHS PD	8
Deferred Enforced Departure	3
Coercive Population Control	2
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	1
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	1
Granted Soriano	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.