Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data
← All judges

Judge Sukkar, Elisa M.

Miami Immigration Court

EOIR data through August 31, 2026 · built September 11, 2026 · What these dates mean

Hearing cases: hearings are scheduled

Last hearing
August 26, 2026
Next hearing
September 2, 2026 · 274 scheduled in all
Last decision
August 26, 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, a transfer and an extended absence cannot be told apart — only what the calendar shows is stated here.

How this is counted

Hearings are scheduled two to three years out, so an empty calendar for a working judge is rare; but for a judge who went quiet in the last few months it may simply be the data lagging. The lookup table's "active" flag is not used: it disagrees with the calendar for a third of judges.

27%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,400 decisions · FY1991–FY2026

95% interval: 25% — 29%

granted:
647
denied:
1,753
How this percentage is calculated

Grant rate = granted / (granted + denied). Administrative closures, withdrawals, abandonment and "not adjudicated" are excluded from the denominator. What is counted is a decision per proceeding, not per application: asylum, withholding and CAT protection are almost always asked for together, so withholding and CAT grants are counted separately from asylum. The U.S. fiscal year runs October 1 – September 30.

How this compares

  • This judge27% (2,400)
  • The whole court — Miami Immigration Court19% (104,731)
  • All U.S. courts33% (1,369,763)

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%199519972000200320062012

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

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (8): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY2026partial813%2% — 47%
FY202530%0% — 56%
FY201510%0% — 79%
FY20132100%34% — 100%
FY20121788%66% — 97%
FY2011450%15% — 85%
FY2010450%15% — 85%
FY2009933%12% — 65%
FY200811641%33% — 50%
FY200720415%10% — 20%
FY200610314%8% — 22%
FY200523223%18% — 29%
FY200426627%22% — 33%
FY200333327%23% — 32%
FY200227922%17% — 27%
FY200115038%31% — 46%
FY200012534%26% — 42%
FY199910127%19% — 36%
FY19987924%16% — 35%
FY199710617%11% — 25%
FY199615841%34% — 49%
FY19959926%19% — 36%
FY199110%0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
Haiti92720%17% — 22%
Colombia66834%30% — 38%
Guatemala966%3% — 13%
Peru9324%16% — 33%
Cuba8270%59% — 78%
Venezuela7638%28% — 49%
Nicaragua6325%16% — 37%
China6121%13% — 33%
Honduras508%3% — 19%
El Salvador3514%6% — 29%
Argentina240%0% — 14%
Russia2055%34% — 74%
Mexico2020%8% — 42%
Albania195%1% — 25%
Guyana1817%6% — 39%

Timing and waits

How long each stage of a case takes before this judge. Every figure is a median: half of cases are faster, half slower. Data as of August 31, 2026; these are past and current cases, not a forecast for yours.

this judgenationwide

How long decided cases took

from the NTA to the decision

18 mo
half of cases: 12—27 mo
Cases decided
2,400
Half of cases
12—27 mo
The whole court
19 mo
NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided incasesthe case ran, medianhalf of cases, mo
FY200811628 mo21—34
FY200720428 mo21—39
FY200610324 mo18—35
FY200523225 mo17—30
FY200426620 mo14—27
FY200333316 mo12—23
FY200227916 mo12—20
FY200115013 mo9—22
FY200012516 mo11—22
FY199910111 mo8—13

Cases decided this year may have begun a decade ago, so this is not a forecast for a case filed today.

The NTA is the charging document; serving it opens the case in court. The figure is a median, not a mean: durations have a long tail, and a few decade-long cases would pull a mean far from the typical case.

How long undecided cases have already waited

from the NTA to the data cutoff

limited data · proceedings in the queue: 165

87 mo
2.6 times longer than nationwidenationwide 34 mo
half of proceedings: 54—94 mo
Proceedings in the queue
165
Half of proceedings
54—94 mo
The whole court
36 mo
Nationwide
34 mo · half: 25—45 mo
Hearing set after the cutoff
97.0% (93.1% — 98.7%) · nationwide 85.5%

Decided cases and waiting cases are different cases: the first have already left the queue, the second are still in it, so these two durations can differ in either direction.

The queue counts proceedings with no decision yet in the release. It is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will.

Shown separately is the share with a hearing scheduled after the cutoff: the rest have no future event in the release at all, and cannot be read as live alongside these.

When the nearest hearing is set

from the data cutoff to the nearest hearing

limited data · cases with a date set: 207

18 d
12 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 7 mo
half of cases: 13 d — 3 mo
Cases with a date set
207
Half of cases
13 d — 3 mo
The whole court
9 mo
Nationwide
7 mo · half: 2—15 mo
Time to the nearest hearing by hearing type and by custody
What is setcasesmedianvs. nationwidea quarter longerover a year out
Master hearing17918 d9.4 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 6 mo44 d0.0%<0.1% — 2.1%

In the rows the figure runs to the nearest hearing of that kind, so it is never shorter than the overall one.

Under each share — the 95% interval.

Hearings set shortly after the cutoff have already happened by the time you read this. The count here is of cases, while the queue above counts proceedings, so the two figures need not agree. The horizon describes the docket, not the speed of the court.

Rows attached to cases already decided are excluded — the release keeps them, and with them the count of those waiting would be a tenth higher. The judge and court come from the schedule row itself: whoever will hold the hearing, not whoever the proceeding is assigned to. Cases where the person is detained have a hearing within days, the rest within months, and courts at detention centres consist almost entirely of the former. The median is only given from fifty cases up: below that it rests on two or three rows.

From a master calendar hearing to the individual hearing

from a master calendar hearing to the one set after it

limited data · hearings followed by an individual hearing: 85

12 mo
1.2 times longer than nationwidenationwide 11 mo
half: 6—35 mo
Master calendar hearings in the year
380
Followed by an individual hearing
22.4% (18.5% — 26.8%) · 85 of 380
To the individual hearing, half of cases
6—35 mo
The whole court
22 mo
Nationwide
11 mo · half: 2—24 mo
    What was scheduled after a master calendar hearing: share of hearings and median gap
    What was scheduled nexthearingssharemedian gap
    An individual hearing8522.4%18.5% — 26.8%14.7% nationwide12 mo
    Another master calendar21957.6%52.6% — 62.5%52.9% nationwide5 mo
    Nothing: the proceeding is over7620.0%16.3% — 24.3%27.5% nationwide—
    Nothing: no hearing set yet00.0%0.0% — 1.0%4.9% nationwide—

    Under each share — the 95% interval.

    The figures cover master calendar hearings over the last twelve months of the release and what was set after each of them. The shares describe hearings, not cases: one case passes through several master hearings in a year and is counted as many times.

    The next hearing has usually not happened yet: its date can be moved. A separate line shows after how many hearings nothing is scheduled — either the proceeding is over or the calendar has not been filled in, and towards the end of the window the second share grows simply because the calendar has not caught up. Cases where the person is detained move more than twenty times faster than the rest, and courts at detention centres consist almost entirely of them. A slot counts the cases of one judge at one time: you go to your judge's courtroom, not to the building. No hearing dates are shown here in any form. The median is only given from fifty hearings up.

    In absentia decisions

    Removal cases completed without the respondent in the room. This is not about a judge's strictness: attendance depends on whether the person is detained, whether notice reached them and whether they have counsel.

    15% of proceedings ended in absentia — 1,677 of 10,878.

    • This judge15% (10,878)
    • The whole court20% (617,404)
    • All U.S. courts19% (11,588,297)
    Share of in absentia decisions by fiscal year
    Fiscal yearProceedingsIn absentiaShare
    FY202111700%
    FY20229700%
    FY20232015%
    FY20242200%
    FY2025656244%
    FY2026partial1,495393%

    The denominator is every completed removal proceeding (RMV): other proceeding types almost never end in absentia. The headline share covers the whole history, while the table shows the latest fiscal years by the proceeding's completion date. An in absentia order can be challenged by a motion to reopen.

    Full statisticsMotions, adjournment reasons, appeals to the BIA, three-member panels and second rounds after a remand.

    Motions

    What the judge does with requests made along the way: continue the hearing, allow appearance by video, terminate the case, put it back on the calendar. Judges differ more here than in the asylum grant rate.

    954 motions decided in October 2021 — August 2026, 531 of them in the last twelve months. 38% are attached to the judge by the nearest hearing.

    Share of motions granted, by type
    MotionDecidednow / beforeGrantedSeptember 2025 — August 2026BeforeOctober 2021 — August 2025Nationallynow / before
    Motion for Stipulated Voluntary Departure14733100%97% — >99%100%90% — 100%98%96%
    Motion for Video Appearance1283598%93% — 99%100%90% — 100%69%79%
    Motion to Terminate486335%23% — 50%60%48% — 71%59%71%
    Motion to Reopen2279—97%91% — 99%45%67%
    Motion to Withdraw as Counsel2731—100%89% — >99%91%88%
    Motion for Administrative Closure352386%71% — 94%—36%76%
    Motion to Dismiss251—94%84% — 98%80%96%

    Under each share — the 95% interval.

    A dash means the window holds too few decisions to name a share; an empty recent column means the judge no longer decides motions of that kind. What the letters G and D mean, EOIR does not publish: there is no lookup for this field, and they are read from the behaviour of the cases.

    How this is counted

    The last twelve months and the years before them are never merged: motion practice changes faster than a case runs, and a single five-year number would average two different eras. A motion record carries no judge code of its own — it is taken from the nearest hearing by date, that is, from whoever was actually sitting on the case at the time; six motions in ten attach that way, the rest are credited to the judge of the proceeding, and the two methods disagree in one case out of five. The "nationally" column shows where judges genuinely differ: procedural motions are granted by nearly everyone nearly always.

    Adjournment reasons

    Why a hearing did not go ahead, and how far it pushed the case. The court assigns the reason itself; a hearing counts as adjourned when another one follows.

    Of 404 hearings with a stated reason in September 2025 — August 2026, 322 were adjourned (80%).

    0 d100 d200 d112 d70 d154 d168 d20222023202420252026

    Thick line — This judge, thin line — nationwide.

    FY2026 is incomplete: 11 of twelve months are in the release, so its point is hollow.

    Years below the 30 threshold: 1. They are not shown, and the line breaks there.

    Show the numbers
    Median gap to the next hearing by fiscal year
    Fiscal yearVolumeMedian days, quartiles belowNationwide
    FY2026incomplete311168 d119 d — 355 d93 d
    FY202596154 d63 d — 261 d161 d
    FY20234770 d56 d — 133 d132 d
    FY202285112 d91 d — 125 d120 d
    Adjournment reasons: share of all adjournments and median days to the next hearing
    ReasonAdjournmentsnow / beforeShareSeptember 2025 — August 2026NationallyFollow-upMedian days
    IJ completion at hearing562417.4%13.6% — 21.9%8.3%4.5%56%288189–37928 nationally
    Preparation - respondent/attorney/representative334110.2%7.4% — 14.0%was 17.7%9.1%8.1%100%154119–168was 11934 nationally
    Other respondent/respondent's attorney/representative request423013.0%9.8% — 17.2%was 13.0%2.8%2.9%98%166155–881was 9562 nationally
    To allow for scheduling of priority case68021.1%17.0% — 25.9%5.4%2.4%100%165126–189202 nationally
    Court closure/postponement061—was 26.4%0.6%5.2%——
    Docket management (postpone hearing)372411.5%8.5% — 15.4%9.7%8.3%100%1,053105–1,139205 nationally
    MC to IC - merits hearing421713.0%9.8% — 17.2%12.0%10.2%100%214128–355309 nationally

    The upper figure in a cell covers September 2025 — August 2026; the lower one and “was” cover October 2021 — August 2025.

    Under the share — the 95% interval; under the median — the quartiles.

    The reason does not assign blame: "respondent to seek representation" covers both a person looking for counsel and a court granting time to look. A dash means the window holds too few adjournments to name a share.

    How this is counted

    The recent window and the years before it are shown apart: adjournment practice changes faster than a case runs, and it is not only the frequencies that move but the reasons themselves, in different directions. Case-completion codes (8A, 8B, 8C) are separated from genuine continuances by behaviour rather than by wording: after them another hearing rarely follows, while after preparation continuances it almost always does. That is what the "follow-up" column shows, and a low value means "the case usually ended here", not "the adjournment failed". The median days figure is how far this reason pushed the next hearing; half the cases fall between the quartiles shown.

    What became of appeals to the BIA

    An immigration judge's decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The key to this table is who filed: the same outcome means opposite things when the respondent appeals and when the government does.

    BIA appeal outcomes by filer
    Filed byAppealsDecision stoodSent backOverturnedClosed without merits
    Respondent2,02880%10%1%8%
    nationally712,35574%13%1%11%
    Government (DHS)11475%11%4%9%
    nationally56,04917%56%9%17%
    Other party3845%37%0%18%
    nationally3,95950%33%2%15%

    There are also appeals of other kinds, not counted in this table: MTR BIA — 927, Appeal of IJ MTR — 100, Circuit Court Remand — 22, Interlocutory Appeal — 10, Bond Appeal — 2.

    How often decisions are appealed

    Share of the judge's decisions that were appealed
    Fiscal yearGrantedAppealed by the governmentDeniedAppealed by the respondent
    FY20250— (8.1%)30% (64.6%)
    FY202610% (8.8%)729% (58.4%)

    In brackets, the same share across all courts. Counted by the date of the judge's decision rather than the Board's: an appeal is filed within a month, so recent years are nearly complete here — unlike the outcomes above.

    Only appeals on the merits (Case Appeal) are counted: motions to the Board itself and bond appeals are different events. The same outcome means opposite things depending on the filer, which is why the bucket is called "the judge's decision stood", not "X won".

    How this is counted

    A dismissed appeal means the removal order stood when the respondent appealed, and that the asylum grant stood when the government did; the two do not go into one percentage. Recent years are undercounted: an appeal takes months or years to resolve, so outcomes are counted by the date of the Board's decision while the appealed share is counted by the date of the judge's decision.

    Board panels

    By default a single Board member decides an appeal. Referral to a three-member panel marks a case found difficult: not how the appeal ended, but how it was heard.

    Appeals on the merits decided in September 2025 — August 2026: 2.

    Fewer than 50 appeals decided — 2 in all. There is nothing to state a share from: referral is a rare event, and on so few the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges. Nationally 4.1% of appeals are referred.

    What follows shows in the outcomes: of 9,114 referred appeals the case went back to the judge in 60.5%, against 10.1% for the rest. The release carries no grounds for referral, so what stands here is measured behaviour, not a decoded label. This is an observation, not an explanation: a panel is not stricter, it gets different cases.

    How often an appeal goes to a panel

    • The whole court2% (1,765)
    • All U.S. courts4% (31,254)

    By who filed the appeal

    Share of appeals referred to a three-member panel, by who filed
    Filed byAppealsnow / beforeReferredSeptember 2025 — August 2026BeforeOctober 2021 — August 2025Nationally
    Respondent21——2.6%7.2%

    Under each share — the 95% interval.

    The grounds for referral are not in the release: the table has no column pointing at a lookup, so in place of a reason stands the measured behaviour of the cases. And this is not a property of the judge alone: panels take cases of a particular kind, and judges see different mixes of them.

    How this is counted

    The grounds themselves are listed in 8 CFR 1003.1(e)(6) — all of them about complexity or a departure from law. Counting goes by the date of the Board's decision, not the date the appeal was filed: referral happens between the two, and an unresolved appeal may lack the marker simply because it has not been reached yet. The two windows are shown apart because the referral rate has moved markedly over the past year, and almost entirely among respondent appeals: without the filer axis the shift would read as a general one. A share is stated from fifty decided appeals in a window upwards: the event is rare, and on fewer the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges.

    How to cite this page

    Figures on this page belong to one monthly release and are replaced whole by the next. The release label and the data cutoff are part of the citation for that reason: without them the number cannot be checked later.

    Asylum Beacon. Judge Sukkar, Elisa M. EOIR Case Data, U.S. DOJ FOIA Library, release 2026-08, data through 2026-08-31. https://asylumbeacon.com/en/judge/EMS

    Methodology in full

    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 give legal advice. The release lags by roughly a month, so check ACIS or Respondent Access for your current case status. The source has known gaps, including among relief applications: if something is missing here, that does not mean it is missing from your case.