Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Marks, Dana Leigh

SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT

No hearings scheduled ahead

Last hearing
April 14, 2025
Next hearing
none scheduled
Last decision
May 26, 2026
Courts worked at: 3

Worked here before

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.

67%

Asylum grant rate

of 4,207 decisions · FY1971–FY2022

95% interval: 65%68%

granted:
2,807
denied:
1,400
other protection: withholding and the Convention Against Torture:
1

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.

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1971–FY2022 — 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 judge67% (4,207)
  • The whole court — SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT56% (89,278)
  • 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%1987199119972003200920152021

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
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY202210%0%79%
FY20211080%49%94%
FY202015390%84%94%
FY201923388%84%92%
FY201810288%81%93%
FY201711992%86%96%
FY201612595%90%98%
FY20159292%85%96%
FY20145968%55%78%
FY20135981%70%89%
FY20128282%72%89%
FY20119263%53%72%
FY20106854%43%66%
FY200910666%57%74%
FY200813255%46%63%
FY200714453%45%61%
FY200610156%47%66%
FY200512569%60%76%
FY200417353%45%60%
FY200316064%56%71%
FY200212470%62%78%
FY200110079%70%86%
FY200010879%70%85%
FY19996958%46%69%
FY19989761%51%70%
FY19976745%33%57%
FY199611252%43%61%
FY199512842%34%51%
FY199412059%50%68%
FY199315955%48%63%
FY199214355%47%63%
FY199115749%41%57%
FY199025355%49%61%
FY198917671%64%77%
FY198819466%60%73%
FY19876175%63%84%
FY198620%0%66%
FY197510%0%79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
INDIA79865%61%68%
EL SALVADOR59759%55%63%
NICARAGUA48648%44%53%
GUATEMALA39175%70%79%
MEXICO24870%64%75%
CHINA21576%70%81%
IRAN9992%85%96%
PERU9874%65%82%
HONDURAS9469%59%78%
FIJI9446%36%56%
AFGHANISTAN9190%82%95%
NEPAL8485%75%91%
PHILIPPINES7416%10%26%
INDONESIA6067%54%77%
PAKISTAN5963%50%74%

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.

21 mo

median

half of cases: 12—39 mo

based on 4,208 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY202015354 mo3067
FY201923327 mo1455
FY201810241 mo2685
FY201711931 mo2739
FY201612518 mo1524
FY20159212 mo927
FY20145936 mo1763
FY20135941 mo2068
FY20128333 mo1052
FY20119226 mo1153

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 decisionAppeals
Remand1,007
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision615
Denied352
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)316
Withdrawal of Appeal172
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)157
Granted123
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD104
Summary Affirmance93
Temporary Protected Status88
Other81
Sustain64
Termination46
Background Check Remand45
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA36
Administratively Closed-DHS PD30
Continued20
Summarily Dismiss18
Dismiss Soriano7
American Baptist Church Settlement6
Grant with no Remand4
Administratively Closed4
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief4
Terminate-DHS PD3
Other Soriano3
Dismiss as Untimely3
Moot Bond2
AFD2
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency1
Dismissed as Moot1
Withdrawal-DHS PD1
Coercive Population Control1
Conditional Grant--CPC Asylum1
Final Denial of EOIR 42B/401
Rejection1
Granted Soriano1

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.