Judge Tregerman, Gwendylan E.

No hearings scheduled ahead

Last hearing: December 19, 2025
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: September 17, 2025

Courts worked at: 7

Worked here before

BOSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT2018—2025 · 27,779 hearings
ATLANTA — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2019 · 1,972 hearings
LUMPKIN — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2019 · 1,092 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2018 · 146 hearings
SEATTLE — IMMIGRATION COURT2018—2018 · 415 hearings
CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT2018—2018 · 120 hearings
CONROE — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2017 · 837 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.

39%

Asylum grant rate

of 870 decisions · FY1995–FY2024

95% interval: 35% — 42%

granted:: 336
denied:: 534

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1995–FY2024 — 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 judge39% (870)
The whole court — BOSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT42% (32,994)
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.

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (1): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table

Grant rate by fiscal year
Period	decisions	granted	95% interval
FY2023	60	58%	46% — 70%
FY2022	188	55%	48% — 62%
FY2021	96	61%	51% — 71%
FY2020	207	30%	24% — 37%
FY2019	181	27%	21% — 34%
FY2018	104	19%	13% — 28%
FY2017	31	23%	11% — 40%
FY1998	3	0%	0% — 56%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
GUATEMALA	219	30%	24% — 36%
EL SALVADOR	118	26%	19% — 35%
BRAZIL	80	19%	12% — 29%
HONDURAS	68	24%	15% — 35%
MEXICO	52	31%	20% — 44%
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO	27	63%	44% — 78%
ANGOLA	25	76%	57% — 89%
CHINA	24	33%	18% — 53%
EGYPT	24	83%	64% — 93%
INDIA	20	5%	1% — 24%
ECUADOR	19	21%	9% — 43%
UGANDA	18	67%	44% — 84%
CAMEROON	15	67%	42% — 85%
HAITI	14	14%	4% — 40%
RUSSIA	13	100%	77% — 100%

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.

29 mo

median

half of cases: 18—45 mo

based on 870 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2023	60	53 mo	45—59
FY2022	188	48 mo	42—55
FY2021	96	36 mo	31—42
FY2020	207	24 mo	20—28
FY2019	181	17 mo	10—22
FY2018	104	25 mo	13—38
FY2017	31	17 mo	11—22

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
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision	349
Remand	72
Denied	49
Summary Affirmance	23
Withdrawal of Appeal	15
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	13
Termination	10
Summarily Dismiss	9
Sustain	8
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	8
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	6
Grant with no Remand	5
Background Check Remand	5
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	4
Terminate-DHS PD	4
Administratively Closed	3
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	2
Rejection	1
Moot Bond	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.