Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Thompson, Donald W., JR.

NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT

Hearing cases: hearings are scheduled

Last hearing
July 30, 2026
Next hearing
August 3, 2026 · 7,304 scheduled in all
Last decision
July 30, 2026
Courts worked at: 4

Hearings scheduled here

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.

60%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,546 decisions · FY1987–FY2026

95% interval: 58%62%

granted:
1,535
denied:
1,011
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 judge60% (2,546)
  • The whole court — NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT57% (230,016)
  • 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%201720182020202220242026

U.S. fiscal year: October 1 – September 30.

FY2026 is incomplete: the release covers only 10 of its 12 months. Its point is drawn hollow and the segment leading to it is dashed.

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (19): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY2026partial3604%3%7%
FY202528635%30%41%
FY202422785%80%89%
FY202326588%84%92%
FY202222889%85%93%
FY20214877%63%87%
FY202023370%64%75%
FY201937564%59%68%
FY201838273%68%77%
FY20178671%61%79%
FY2016333%6%79%
FY201520%0%66%
FY201410%0%79%
FY2013367%21%94%
FY2012838%14%69%
FY201030%0%56%
FY2009450%15%85%
FY200830%0%56%
FY200740%0%49%
FY2006250%9%91%
FY200320%0%66%
FY200220%0%66%
FY200020%0%66%
FY199920%0%66%
FY199850%0%43%
FY199710%0%79%
FY199650%0%43%
FY199530%0%56%
FY199210%0%79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
CHINA87277%74%79%
INDIA37166%61%71%
BANGLADESH14668%61%75%
EL SALVADOR14444%36%52%
NEPAL11885%77%90%
ECUADOR11613%8%20%
HONDURAS7046%35%57%
GUATEMALA5739%27%52%
UZBEKISTAN526%2%16%
ALBANIA4890%78%95%
PAKISTAN4370%55%81%
GUINEA4132%20%47%
RUSSIA3839%26%55%
VENEZUELA329%3%24%
SRI LANKA3037%22%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.

47 mo

median

half of cases: 33—69 mo

based on 2,546 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY202636033 mo2747
FY202528632 mo2278
FY202422771 mo5982
FY202326567 mo5077
FY202222845 mo3958
FY20214845 mo3659
FY202023347 mo3464
FY201937551 mo3562
FY201838244 mo3856
FY20178644 mo3853

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.

5,520
cases waiting
36 mo
already waited, median
  • Half have waited between 29 mo and 53 mo.
  • 4,227 (77%) have a hearing scheduled later than the date this data was collected. The rest have no upcoming event in the release.

The queue counts proceedings with no decision in the release. The figure runs from the NTA date to the release cutoff — it is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will. Shown separately: how many have a hearing scheduled after the cutoff. The rest have no upcoming event in the release and should not be read alongside live cases.

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
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision210
Remand46
Denied42
Summarily Dismiss19
Summary Affirmance18
Withdrawal of Appeal15
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA8
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief8
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal8
Grant with no Remand5
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)5
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency4
Sustain4
Moot Bond4
Termination3
Terminate-DHS PD3
Other1
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD1
Dismiss as Untimely1
Temporary Protected Status1

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.