Judge Gastley, Harry L.

LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: May 4, 2012
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: January 16, 2024

Courts worked at: 11

Worked here before

LAS VEGAS — IMMIGRATION COURT1984—2012 · 31,360 hearings
SACRAMENTO — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—2012 · 4,292 hearings
IMPERIAL — IMMIGRATION COURT2011—2011 · 37 hearings
DALLAS — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2010 · 21 hearings
ELOY — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2010 · 48 hearings
FLORENCE — IMMIGRATION COURT2010—2010 · 12 hearings
PHOENIX — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2005 · 18 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2003 · 92 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT1990—2002 · 7,465 hearings
MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT1993—1999 · 2,658 hearings
ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1993—1994 · 24 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.

16%

Asylum grant rate

of 1,982 decisions · FY1990–FY2013

95% interval: 14% — 17%

granted:: 311
denied:: 1,671

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1990–FY2013 — 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 judge16% (1,982)
The whole court — LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT26% (102,953)
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.

Show as a table

Grant rate by fiscal year
Period	decisions	granted	95% interval
FY2011	61	33%	22% — 45%
FY2010	44	25%	15% — 39%
FY2009	72	46%	35% — 57%
FY2008	62	23%	14% — 34%
FY2007	43	33%	20% — 47%
FY2006	52	35%	23% — 48%
FY2005	42	17%	8% — 31%
FY2004	65	20%	12% — 31%
FY2003	85	14%	8% — 23%
FY2002	66	27%	18% — 39%
FY2001	60	18%	11% — 30%
FY2000	59	36%	25% — 48%
FY1999	80	20%	13% — 30%
FY1998	155	10%	6% — 16%
FY1997	260	13%	10% — 18%
FY1996	512	4%	3% — 6%
FY1995	264	13%	9% — 17%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
GUATEMALA	407	2%	1% — 4%
EL SALVADOR	217	0%	0% — 3%
MEXICO	151	1%	0% — 5%
CHINA	136	32%	25% — 41%
HAITI	124	6%	3% — 11%
ARMENIA	88	33%	24% — 43%
NICARAGUA	69	6%	2% — 14%
HONDURAS	66	0%	0% — 6%
PHILIPPINES	64	0%	0% — 6%
PERU	60	18%	11% — 30%
COLOMBIA	45	33%	21% — 48%
INDIA	39	13%	6% — 27%
ETHIOPIA	38	42%	28% — 58%
PAKISTAN	33	27%	15% — 44%
CUBA	29	41%	26% — 59%

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.

7 mo

median

half of cases: 4—13 mo

based on 1,982 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2011	61	20 mo	14—34
FY2010	44	14 mo	8—21
FY2009	72	15 mo	10—32
FY2008	62	15 mo	10—27
FY2007	43	15 mo	8—51
FY2006	52	8 mo	7—25
FY2005	42	8 mo	3—21
FY2004	65	8 mo	4—12
FY2003	85	6 mo	4—14
FY2002	66	8 mo	4—13

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	625
Remand	598
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	453
Denied	443
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	288
Summary Affirmance	186
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	144
Sustain	87
Other	83
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	80
Granted	75
Termination	74
Temporary Protected Status	63
Withdrawal of Appeal	62
Dismiss as Untimely	42
Background Check Remand	41
Summarily Dismiss	26
Dismiss Soriano	22
Continued	18
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	16
Rejection	15
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	14
Deferred Enforced Departure	13
Grant with no Remand	12
Moot Bond	10
Terminate-DHS PD	7
Granted Soriano	6
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	5
Coercive Population Control	4
Denied Soriano	3
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Other Soriano	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.