Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Churchill, Joan V.

ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing
August 30, 2007
Next hearing
none scheduled
Last decision
October 6, 2021
Courts worked at: 13

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.

16%

Asylum grant rate

of 4,448 decisions · FY1972–FY2005

95% interval: 15%17%

granted:
696
denied:
3,752

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1972–FY2005 — 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% (4,448)
  • The whole court — ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT42% (34,999)
  • 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%198319891993199720012005

U.S. fiscal year: October 1 – September 30.

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (4): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY200510335%26%45%
FY200421622%17%28%
FY200316814%10%20%
FY200216420%15%27%
FY200117420%14%26%
FY200022514%10%19%
FY199918018%13%25%
FY199822921%16%26%
FY199728718%14%23%
FY199629018%14%23%
FY199525112%9%17%
FY199412113%8%20%
FY19939215%9%24%
FY199212721%15%29%
FY199119418%13%24%
FY19903059%6%13%
FY198922612%9%17%
FY198820912%8%17%
FY198727913%10%18%
FY19862679%6%13%
FY198528111%8%15%
FY19843619%10%35%
FY19831414%4%40%
FY198250%0%43%
FY198120%0%66%
FY198020%0%66%
FY197510%0%79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
EL SALVADOR1,4824%3%5%
ETHIOPIA43827%23%32%
SOMALIA23423%18%29%
GUATEMALA1993%1%6%
NICARAGUA1677%4%11%
CHINA11722%16%31%
IRAN11357%47%65%
AFGHANISTAN9858%48%67%
INDONESIA9010%5%18%
CAMEROON8728%19%38%
PAKISTAN8540%30%51%
PERU7310%5%18%
HONDURAS694%1%12%
HAITI665%2%13%
NIGERIA6224%15%36%

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: 6—21 mo

based on 4,448 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY200510313 mo920
FY200421617 mo1128
FY200316812 mo618
FY200216410 mo515
FY20011747 mo314
FY20002257 mo414
FY19991809 mo514
FY19982296 mo410
FY19972876 mo310
FY19962907 mo410

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 Decision735
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)685
Temporary Protected Status643
Remand578
Denied478
Granted307
Withdrawal of Appeal256
Other251
Sustain177
Summary Affirmance175
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD165
Continued116
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)77
Termination64
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA40
Summarily Dismiss25
American Baptist Church Settlement18
Dismiss as Untimely15
Dismiss Soriano14
Terminate-DHS PD9
Background Check Remand9
Grant with no Remand8
Deferred Enforced Departure8
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief5
Moot Bond5
Dismissed as Moot3
Granted Soriano3
Rejection3
Denied Soriano2
ANY CONDITIONAL GRANT OF RELIEF-EXCEPT CPC1
Coercive Population Control1
Other Soriano1
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)1
Administratively Closed-DHS PD1
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal1
AFD1
ADD1

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.