Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Chew, George T.

NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing
May 23, 2019
Next hearing
none scheduled
Last decision
September 24, 2019
Courts worked at: 9

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.

71%

Asylum grant rate

of 7,113 decisions · FY1960–FY2019

95% interval: 70%72%

granted:
5,073
denied:
2,040

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1960–FY2019 — 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 judge71% (7,113)
  • 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%199620012005200920132017

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
FY201718093%89%96%
FY201624895%91%97%
FY201526389%85%93%
FY201424692%88%95%
FY201330891%88%94%
FY201235091%88%94%
FY201132684%80%88%
FY201035885%81%89%
FY200933273%68%77%
FY200832064%59%69%
FY200738779%74%82%
FY200636574%69%78%
FY200535373%68%77%
FY200443972%68%76%
FY200347464%59%68%
FY200234065%59%70%
FY200129673%68%78%
FY200028758%52%64%
FY199928356%50%61%
FY199823756%49%62%
FY199737745%40%50%
FY199632721%17%26%
FY1995520%4%62%
FY199430%0%56%
FY199310%0%79%
FY199010%0%79%
FY198920%0%66%
FY198820%0%66%
FY198710%0%79%
FY198620%0%66%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
CHINA4,04177%76%78%
ALBANIA35176%72%80%
MAURITANIA18352%45%59%
Former Countries18369%62%76%
BANGLADESH16544%36%51%
INDIA13853%45%61%
GUINEA13769%60%76%
NEPAL13593%88%96%
INDONESIA12570%61%77%
RUSSIA11473%64%80%
EGYPT10491%84%95%
PAKISTAN10330%22%40%
EL SALVADOR10227%20%37%
Former Countries9791%83%95%
SRI LANKA6769%57%78%

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.

19 mo

median

half of cases: 11—33 mo

based on 7,113 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY201718046 mo4352
FY201624841 mo3949
FY201526336 mo3442
FY201424633 mo3038
FY201330828 mo2535
FY201235025 mo2236
FY201132621 mo1936
FY201035817 mo1330
FY200933216 mo1329
FY200832015 mo1126

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 Decision739
Denied649
Remand609
Summary Affirmance311
Termination180
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)146
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD98
Sustain76
Summarily Dismiss74
Background Check Remand47
Other45
Withdrawal of Appeal42
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA40
Granted39
Coercive Population Control27
Temporary Protected Status23
Dismiss as Untimely17
Terminate-DHS PD12
Continued11
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)11
Dismiss Soriano10
Grant with no Remand8
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief6
Deferred Enforced Departure4
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)2
Rejection2
Granted Soriano1
Administratively Closed1
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal1

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.