Judge Ipema, Henry P.
Hearing cases: hearings are scheduled
- Last hearing
- July 2, 2020
- Next hearing
- February 8, 2027 · 11 scheduled in all
- Last decision
- June 5, 2019
Courts worked at: 14
Hearings scheduled here
- SAN ANTONIO — IMMIGRATION COURT · 0 hearings
Worked here before
- SAN DIEGO — IMMIGRATION COURT1983—2020 · 31,428 hearings
- ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT2018—2018 · 26 hearings
- OTAY MESA — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2018 · 51 hearings
- OTERO — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2017 · 30 hearings
- IMPERIAL — IMMIGRATION COURT2010—2017 · 2,213 hearings
- PHOENIX — IMMIGRATION COURT2004—2010 · 39 hearings
- ELOY — IMMIGRATION COURT2010—2010 · 25 hearings
- FLORENCE — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2009 · 109 hearings
- CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2009 · 11 hearings
- TUCSON — IMMIGRATION COURT2003—2008 · 248 hearings
- LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT1976—2007 · 31,138 hearings
- ADELANTO — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2002 · 53 hearings
- NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—1998 · 31 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.
23%
Asylum grant rate
of 2,550 decisions · FY1985–FY2019
95% interval: 22% — 25%
- granted:
- 593
- denied:
- 1,957
- other protection: withholding and the Convention Against Torture:
- 3
Withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture let a person stay, but grant no refugee status and no path to a green card. They are therefore excluded from the asylum grant rate and shown as a separate figure.
How this percentage is calculated
How this compares
- This judge23% (2,550)
- The whole court — SAN DIEGO — IMMIGRATION COURT30% (18,343)
- 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 (7): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.
Show as a table
| Period | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2019 | 54 | 15% | 8% — 27% |
| FY2018 | 184 | 23% | 17% — 29% |
| FY2017 | 81 | 44% | 34% — 55% |
| FY2016 | 38 | 47% | 32% — 63% |
| FY2015 | 52 | 44% | 32% — 58% |
| FY2014 | 62 | 27% | 18% — 40% |
| FY2013 | 53 | 42% | 29% — 55% |
| FY2012 | 42 | 60% | 44% — 73% |
| FY2011 | 31 | 65% | 47% — 79% |
| FY2010 | 40 | 20% | 10% — 35% |
| FY2009 | 26 | 42% | 26% — 61% |
| FY2008 | 47 | 51% | 37% — 65% |
| FY2007 | 42 | 36% | 23% — 51% |
| FY2006 | 46 | 30% | 19% — 45% |
| FY2005 | 63 | 43% | 31% — 55% |
| FY2004 | 95 | 19% | 12% — 28% |
| FY2003 | 123 | 49% | 40% — 58% |
| FY2002 | 92 | 47% | 37% — 57% |
| FY2001 | 103 | 35% | 26% — 45% |
| FY2000 | 78 | 37% | 27% — 48% |
| FY1999 | 98 | 26% | 18% — 35% |
| FY1998 | 365 | 7% | 5% — 10% |
| FY1997 | 369 | 8% | 5% — 11% |
| FY1996 | 350 | 5% | 4% — 8% |
| FY1995 | 9 | 0% | 0% — 30% |
| FY1993 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY1991 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY1990 | 2 | 0% | 0% — 66% |
| FY1989 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY1988 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY1987 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
By applicant nationality
| Nationality | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| MEXICO | 502 | 3% | 2% — 5% |
| GUATEMALA | 444 | 6% | 4% — 8% |
| EL SALVADOR | 257 | 4% | 2% — 8% |
| CHINA | 179 | 28% | 22% — 36% |
| IRAQ | 123 | 87% | 80% — 92% |
| ARMENIA | 121 | 38% | 30% — 47% |
| HONDURAS | 80 | 8% | 3% — 15% |
| IRAN | 77 | 45% | 35% — 57% |
| INDIA | 48 | 46% | 33% — 60% |
| PHILIPPINES | 46 | 0% | 0% — 8% |
| PERU | 46 | 17% | 9% — 31% |
| BANGLADESH | 45 | 18% | 9% — 31% |
| ETHIOPIA | 39 | 74% | 59% — 85% |
| RUSSIA | 39 | 51% | 36% — 66% |
| NICARAGUA | 35 | 3% | 1% — 15% |
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.
11 mo
median
half of cases: 5—22 mo
based on 2,553 cases
| Decided in | Cases | median | half of cases, mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2019 | 54 | 34 mo | 27—37 |
| FY2018 | 184 | 32 mo | 20—39 |
| FY2017 | 84 | 21 mo | 14—31 |
| FY2016 | 38 | 20 mo | 15—28 |
| FY2015 | 52 | 11 mo | 8—21 |
| FY2014 | 62 | 15 mo | 7—34 |
| FY2013 | 53 | 26 mo | 8—43 |
| FY2012 | 42 | 18 mo | 8—27 |
| FY2011 | 31 | 17 mo | 13—30 |
| FY2010 | 40 | 28 mo | 15—36 |
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.
- 11
- cases waiting
- 31 mo
- already waited, median
- Half have waited between 23 mo and 33 mo.
- 11 (100%) have a hearing scheduled later than the date this data was collected. The rest have no upcoming event in the release.
The queue counts proceedings with no decision in the release. The figure runs from the NTA date to the release cutoff — it is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will. Shown separately: how many have a hearing scheduled after the cutoff. The rest have no upcoming event in the release and should not be read alongside live cases.
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.
| BIA decision | Appeals |
|---|---|
| Denied | 978 |
| Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision | 942 |
| Remand | 792 |
| SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD | 546 |
| Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days) | 423 |
| Summary Affirmance | 295 |
| Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted) | 234 |
| Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA | 113 |
| Termination | 108 |
| Other | 104 |
| Withdrawal of Appeal | 85 |
| Granted | 71 |
| Sustain | 67 |
| Summarily Dismiss | 66 |
| Dismiss as Untimely | 60 |
| Temporary Protected Status | 57 |
| Continued | 48 |
| Background Check Remand | 42 |
| Administratively Closed-DHS PD | 35 |
| Grant with no Remand | 23 |
| Rejection | 15 |
| Terminate-DHS PD | 14 |
| Dismiss Soriano | 12 |
| Summary Dismissal (e) no brief | 10 |
| Moot Bond | 9 |
| Administratively Closed | 9 |
| SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e) | 4 |
| Coercive Population Control | 2 |
| ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency | 2 |
| Dismissed as Moot | 2 |
| Conditional Grant--CPC Asylum | 1 |
| Other Soriano | 1 |
| SPECIAL NACARA CONTINUATION | 1 |
| Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal | 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.