Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Lamb, Elizabeth A.

NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing
April 29, 2020
Next hearing
none scheduled
Last decision
September 19, 2024
Courts worked at: 8

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.

77%

Asylum grant rate

of 6,056 decisions · FY1976–FY2018

95% interval: 76%78%

granted:
4,640
denied:
1,416
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 FY1976–FY2018 — 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 judge77% (6,056)
  • 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%199620022006201020142018

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

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (7): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY20183281%65%91%
FY201728588%84%92%
FY201626194%90%96%
FY201526194%91%96%
FY201421897%94%98%
FY201326298%95%99%
FY201234697%94%98%
FY201128298%95%99%
FY201011893%87%97%
FY200918691%86%95%
FY200827386%81%89%
FY200731191%87%93%
FY200626683%78%87%
FY200535977%73%81%
FY200428479%74%84%
FY200333770%65%75%
FY200226568%62%73%
FY200123768%62%74%
FY200026264%58%70%
FY199928263%58%69%
FY199835245%40%50%
FY199724452%46%58%
FY199631121%17%26%
FY199570%0%35%
FY199450%0%43%
FY199210%0%79%
FY199120%0%66%
FY199020%0%66%
FY198840%0%49%
FY198710%0%79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
CHINA3,57878%76%79%
ALBANIA25192%88%95%
MAURITANIA14767%59%74%
INDIA14366%58%73%
Former Countries14186%79%91%
BANGLADESH12359%50%67%
GUINEA11781%73%87%
NEPAL10297%92%99%
RUSSIA10193%86%97%
PAKISTAN9971%61%79%
Former Countries9597%91%99%
EGYPT9094%88%98%
EL SALVADOR8222%14%32%
INDONESIA5383%71%91%
SRI LANKA5096%87%99%

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.

24 mo

median

half of cases: 14—40 mo

based on 6,057 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY20183245 mo3953
FY201728546 mo4058
FY201626144 mo3858
FY201526138 mo3451
FY201421835 mo3151
FY201326230 mo2649
FY201234633 mo2351
FY201128326 mo1840
FY201011824 mo1746
FY200918619 mo1234

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
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision637
Denied635
Remand419
Summary Affirmance247
Termination162
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)130
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD107
Sustain53
Withdrawal of Appeal50
Summarily Dismiss45
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA43
Background Check Remand40
Granted37
Other32
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)27
Coercive Population Control21
Temporary Protected Status18
Dismiss as Untimely10
Terminate-DHS PD10
Continued8
Dismiss Soriano8
Rejection5
Grant with no Remand4
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief4
American Baptist Church Settlement2
Moot Bond2
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal2
Deferred Enforced Departure2
Administratively Closed2
Other Soriano1
Dismissed as Moot1
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)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.