Judge Vail, Joseph

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: August 10, 2000
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: August 10, 2000

Courts worked at: 5

Worked here before

HOUSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT1985—2000 · 9,085 hearings
CONROE — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—1999 · 330 hearings
CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—1997 · 97 hearings
DALLAS — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—1997 · 164 hearings
MEMPHIS — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—1997 · 33 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.

34%

Asylum grant rate

of 652 decisions · FY1986–FY1999

95% interval: 30% — 38%

granted:: 221
denied:: 431

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1986–FY1999 — 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 judge34% (652)
The whole court — HOUSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT12% (34,399)
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
FY1999	73	30%	21% — 41%
FY1998	132	25%	18% — 33%
FY1997	167	35%	28% — 42%
FY1996	231	38%	32% — 45%
FY1995	49	41%	28% — 55%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
EL SALVADOR	207	12%	8% — 17%
GUATEMALA	123	29%	22% — 38%
HONDURAS	41	29%	18% — 44%
NICARAGUA	38	47%	32% — 63%
PAKISTAN	38	66%	50% — 79%
MEXICO	20	20%	8% — 42%
SOMALIA	19	68%	46% — 85%
INDIA	17	59%	36% — 78%
BANGLADESH	16	81%	57% — 93%
PERU	14	57%	33% — 79%
NIGERIA	12	33%	14% — 61%
CHINA	9	78%	45% — 94%
IRAN	8	38%	14% — 69%
JORDAN	8	13%	2% — 47%
ETHIOPIA	7	100%	65% — 100%

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.

8 mo

median

half of cases: 6—12 mo

based on 652 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY1999	73	10 mo	7—15
FY1998	132	8 mo	6—11
FY1997	167	7 mo	5—10
FY1996	231	8 mo	6—13
FY1995	49	10 mo	7—15

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
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	123
Temporary Protected Status	119
Remand	95
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision	84
Summary Affirmance	55
Denied	50
Other	42
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	42
Withdrawal of Appeal	26
Granted	26
Sustain	21
Dismiss as Untimely	14
Grant with no Remand	13
Termination	12
Terminate-DHS PD	9
Rejection	7
Continued	5
Dismiss Soriano	4
Summarily Dismiss	4
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	3
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	2
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Background Check Remand	2
Deferred Enforced Departure	2
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	2
Coercive Population Control	1
Granted Soriano	1
Denied 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.