Judge Bryant, John Milo

No hearings scheduled ahead

Last hearing: August 26, 2024
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: January 30, 2024

Courts worked at: 12

Worked here before

STERLING — STERLING2019—2024 · 242 hearings
ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1984—2024 · 134,028 hearings
PHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT1974—2024 · 305 hearings
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2017 · 73 hearings
CLEVELAND — IMMIGRATION COURT1999—2010 · 6,013 hearings
BALTIMORE — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—1998 · 68 hearings
ATLANTA — IMMIGRATION COURT1986—1995 · 1,554 hearings
GUAYNABO — IMMIGRATION COURT1983—1995 · 1,635 hearings
FORT SNELLING — IMMIGRATION COURT1975—1992 · 598 hearings
CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT1974—1992 · 814 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—1990 · 102 hearings
MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT1976—1989 · 11,975 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 5,201 decisions · FY1975–FY2023

95% interval: 38% — 41%

granted:: 2,048
denied:: 3,153

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1975–FY2023 — 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% (5,201)
The whole court — MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT19% (104,037)
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 (3): 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	2	50%	9% — 91%
FY2022	20	70%	48% — 85%
FY2021	44	73%	58% — 84%
FY2020	98	36%	27% — 46%
FY2019	67	57%	45% — 68%
FY2018	59	53%	40% — 65%
FY2017	15	73%	48% — 89%
FY2016	20	80%	58% — 92%
FY2015	45	78%	64% — 87%
FY2014	80	80%	70% — 87%
FY2013	145	85%	78% — 90%
FY2012	102	90%	83% — 95%
FY2011	121	79%	71% — 86%
FY2010	80	81%	71% — 88%
FY2009	83	76%	66% — 84%
FY2008	98	80%	71% — 86%
FY2007	173	75%	68% — 81%
FY2006	199	75%	69% — 81%
FY2005	205	36%	29% — 42%
FY2004	193	29%	23% — 36%
FY2003	177	27%	21% — 34%
FY2002	162	30%	23% — 37%
FY2001	109	36%	27% — 45%
FY2000	140	29%	22% — 37%
FY1999	174	33%	26% — 40%
FY1998	202	28%	22% — 35%
FY1997	287	28%	23% — 34%
FY1996	197	38%	31% — 45%
FY1995	255	26%	21% — 32%
FY1994	149	34%	27% — 42%
FY1993	110	31%	23% — 40%
FY1992	87	31%	22% — 41%
FY1991	55	29%	19% — 42%
FY1990	56	11%	5% — 21%
FY1989	197	21%	16% — 27%
FY1988	343	20%	16% — 24%
FY1987	301	19%	15% — 24%
FY1986	231	12%	8% — 16%
FY1985	112	7%	4% — 13%
FY1984	5	0%	0% — 43%
FY1983	3	0%	0% — 56%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
ETHIOPIA	639	67%	63% — 71%
EL SALVADOR	625	21%	18% — 24%
CUBA	515	17%	14% — 20%
NICARAGUA	422	23%	19% — 27%
GUATEMALA	217	18%	13% — 23%
HONDURAS	173	36%	29% — 43%
MAURITANIA	170	54%	46% — 61%
CHINA	166	46%	38% — 53%
CAMEROON	165	70%	63% — 77%
SOMALIA	164	45%	38% — 53%
HAITI	160	4%	2% — 8%
PAKISTAN	90	48%	38% — 58%
SIERRA LEONE	89	37%	28% — 47%
ERITREA	87	79%	70% — 86%
SUDAN	86	43%	33% — 54%

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.

15 mo

median

half of cases: 8—29 mo

based on 5,201 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2021	44	72 mo	63—86
FY2020	98	67 mo	54—76
FY2019	67	59 mo	53—65
FY2018	59	51 mo	44—59
FY2015	45	40 mo	19—71
FY2014	80	37 mo	27—55
FY2013	145	28 mo	22—41
FY2012	102	28 mo	22—46
FY2011	121	32 mo	17—47
FY2010	80	31 mo	21—43

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.

1
cases waiting: 100 mo
already waited, median

Half have waited between 100 mo and 100 mo.
1 (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.

What became of appeals to the BIA
BIA decision	Appeals
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision	1,265
Remand	773
Denied	449
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	431
Withdrawal of Appeal	282
Granted	193
Summary Affirmance	180
Other	178
Sustain	173
Temporary Protected Status	98
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	77
Termination	51
Background Check Remand	51
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	45
Summarily Dismiss	43
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	40
Continued	26
Dismiss Soriano	25
Dismiss as Untimely	16
Terminate-DHS PD	11
RET	10
American Baptist Church Settlement	9
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	8
Moot Bond	8
Deferred Enforced Departure	7
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	6
Rejection	5
Grant with no Remand	5
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency	4
Coercive Population Control	4
Other Soriano	3
Administratively Closed	3
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	3
Dismissed as Moot	2
Denied Soriano	2
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Administrative Return	1
Granted Soriano	1
REV	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.