Judge Cordova, David J.

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: November 13, 2014
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: January 15, 2014

Courts worked at: 12

Worked here before

DENVER — IMMIGRATION COURT1981—2014 · 45,136 hearings
HARLINGEN — IMMIGRATION COURT2007—2013 · 381 hearings
AURORA — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2013 · 16,893 hearings
LOS FRESNOS — IMMIGRATION COURT2012—2012 · 18 hearings
LAS VEGAS — IMMIGRATION COURT2011—2012 · 44 hearings
IMPERIAL — IMMIGRATION COURT2011—2011 · 58 hearings
FORT SNELLING — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2009 · 92 hearings
WEST VALLEY — IMMIGRATION COURT2003—2007 · 19 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2005 · 33 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2003 · 58 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2002 · 34 hearings
TACOMA — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—1996 · 39 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.

40%

Asylum grant rate

of 1,765 decisions · FY1989–FY2014

95% interval: 38% — 42%

granted:: 707
denied:: 1,058

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1989–FY2014 — 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 judge40% (1,765)
The whole court — DENVER — IMMIGRATION COURT34% (13,461)
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
FY2013	63	49%	37% — 61%
FY2012	74	49%	38% — 60%
FY2011	53	43%	31% — 57%
FY2010	48	54%	40% — 67%
FY2009	77	23%	15% — 34%
FY2008	84	26%	18% — 36%
FY2007	106	32%	24% — 41%
FY2006	127	49%	40% — 57%
FY2005	170	42%	35% — 49%
FY2004	92	43%	34% — 54%
FY2003	112	45%	36% — 54%
FY2002	126	45%	37% — 54%
FY2001	86	63%	52% — 72%
FY2000	87	39%	29% — 50%
FY1999	101	29%	21% — 38%
FY1998	112	32%	24% — 41%
FY1997	134	32%	25% — 40%
FY1996	113	36%	28% — 45%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
INDONESIA	271	20%	16% — 25%
GUATEMALA	203	11%	8% — 16%
EL SALVADOR	158	3%	1% — 7%
RUSSIA	86	63%	52% — 72%
CHINA	76	51%	40% — 62%
SOMALIA	71	77%	66% — 86%
NEPAL	68	69%	57% — 79%
ETHIOPIA	60	80%	68% — 88%
MAURITANIA	54	78%	65% — 87%
COLOMBIA	53	53%	40% — 66%
PERU	50	32%	21% — 46%
UGANDA	37	51%	36% — 67%
HONDURAS	27	11%	4% — 28%
MEXICO	27	4%	1% — 18%
SUDAN	24	79%	60% — 91%

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.

19 mo

median

half of cases: 10—34 mo

based on 1,765 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2013	63	44 mo	23—70
FY2012	74	40 mo	21—73
FY2011	53	46 mo	25—60
FY2010	48	35 mo	28—54
FY2009	77	34 mo	27—58
FY2008	84	40 mo	22—55
FY2007	106	40 mo	24—46
FY2006	127	31 mo	27—39
FY2005	170	23 mo	17—32
FY2004	92	17 mo	12—23

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
Remand	901
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision	447
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	265
Denied	241
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	169
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	120
Withdrawal of Appeal	119
Summary Affirmance	82
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	79
Other	57
Sustain	55
Temporary Protected Status	52
Granted	52
Termination	49
Background Check Remand	31
Summarily Dismiss	23
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	21
Dismiss Soriano	15
Dismiss as Untimely	12
Grant with no Remand	11
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	9
Terminate-DHS PD	8
Continued	8
Moot Bond	7
Administratively Closed	7
Rejection	6
MB	4
Dismissed as Moot	2
Granted Soriano	2
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Conditional Grant--CPC Asylum	1
SPECIAL NACARA CONTINUATION	1
Other 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.