Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Mcphaul, Glenn P.

PEARSALL — IMMIGRATION COURT

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing
November 29, 2019
Next hearing
none scheduled
Last decision
October 15, 2019
Courts worked at: 11

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.

32%

Asylum grant rate

of 1,302 decisions · FY1983–FY2016

95% interval: 30%35%

granted:
418
denied:
884

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1983–FY2016 — 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 judge32% (1,302)
  • The whole court — PEARSALL — IMMIGRATION COURT21% (6,827)
  • 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%198919962001200620112016

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

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (5): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY20162383%63%93%
FY20153719%9%34%
FY20145125%16%39%
FY20132642%26%61%
FY20123327%15%44%
FY20113951%36%66%
FY20104248%33%62%
FY20095052%39%65%
FY20084450%36%64%
FY20074335%22%50%
FY20065135%24%49%
FY20053936%23%52%
FY20042665%46%81%
FY20034531%20%46%
FY20022352%33%71%
FY20012138%21%59%
FY20002236%20%57%
FY19992832%18%51%
FY19982615%6%34%
FY19973933%21%49%
FY19963719%9%34%
FY1995329%3%24%
FY19942114%5%35%
FY19938836%27%47%
FY199210628%21%38%
FY19917415%9%25%
FY199014621%15%29%
FY19897629%20%40%
FY198830%0%56%
FY198750%0%43%
FY198610%0%79%
FY198520%0%66%
FY198430%0%56%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
NICARAGUA23525%20%31%
EL SALVADOR17411%8%17%
HONDURAS16716%11%22%
GUATEMALA1239%5%15%
MEXICO5319%11%31%
SOMALIA4984%71%91%
CHINA4053%37%67%
INDIA4028%16%43%
ERITREA4095%83%99%
ETHIOPIA3667%50%80%
COLOMBIA3543%28%59%
BURMA (MYANMAR)3397%85%99%
CUBA3053%36%70%
PAKISTAN2322%10%42%
HAITI2268%47%84%

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.

6 mo

median

half of cases: 4—13 mo

based on 1,302 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY2015373 mo34
FY2014514 mo314
FY20123313 mo527
FY20113912 mo919
FY2010429 mo611
FY2009506 mo59
FY20084410 mo613
FY2007436 mo59
FY20065110 mo517
FY2005397 mo411

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 Decision1,038
Remand343
Denied277
Withdrawal of Appeal230
Summary Affirmance218
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)165
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA84
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)82
Granted73
Other72
Summarily Dismiss61
Temporary Protected Status53
Termination50
Sustain48
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD43
Dismiss Soriano33
Background Check Remand18
Moot Bond18
Rejection18
Dismiss as Untimely13
American Baptist Church Settlement12
Administratively Closed9
Terminate-DHS PD8
Administratively Closed-DHS PD6
Granted Soriano5
Grant with no Remand3
Denied Soriano3
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal3
Dismissed as Moot2
Continued2
AFD2
Deferred Enforced Departure1
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal1
Summary Dismissal (o) Other1
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.