Judge Pead, Dustin

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: May 28, 2014
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: March 18, 2013

Courts worked at: 2

Worked here before

WEST VALLEY — IMMIGRATION COURT2008—2014 · 14,951 hearings
SAIPAN — IMMIGRATION COURT2010—2010 · 88 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.

42%

Asylum grant rate

of 150 decisions · FY2000–FY2013

95% interval: 34% — 50%

granted:: 63
denied:: 87

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY2000–FY2013 — 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 judge42% (150)
The whole court — WEST VALLEY — IMMIGRATION COURT47% (8,553)
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.

Show as a table

Grant rate by fiscal year
Period	decisions	granted	95% interval
FY2012	17	24%	10% — 47%
FY2011	44	52%	38% — 66%
FY2010	37	51%	36% — 67%
FY2009	40	38%	24% — 53%
FY2008	12	17%	5% — 45%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
EL SALVADOR	16	19%	7% — 43%
MEXICO	13	38%	18% — 64%
CHINA	10	70%	40% — 89%
GUATEMALA	9	0%	0% — 30%
VENEZUELA	7	86%	49% — 97%
SOMALIA	5	20%	4% — 62%
ETHIOPIA	4	100%	51% — 100%
ZIMBABWE	4	75%	30% — 95%
IRAN	4	25%	5% — 70%
CHAD	4	50%	15% — 85%
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO	4	75%	30% — 95%
INDIA	4	50%	15% — 85%
ARMENIA	3	33%	6% — 79%
LAOS	3	100%	44% — 100%
UKRAINE	3	67%	21% — 94%

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.

14 mo

median

half of cases: 7—25 mo

based on 150 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2011	44	14 mo	10—29
FY2010	37	9 mo	5—20
FY2009	40	13 mo	5—22

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	128
Remand	55
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	34
Denied	20
Other	11
Withdrawal of Appeal	10
Background Check Remand	9
Termination	9
Summary Affirmance	7
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	7
Summarily Dismiss	5
Grant with no Remand	5
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	3
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	2
Sustain	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.