Judge Bradley, Kevin G.

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: January 9, 2012
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: April 10, 2026

Courts worked at: 10

Worked here before

MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT1985—2012 · 33,827 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2007 · 41 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT2001—2005 · 80 hearings
Orlando — IMMIGRATION COURT2003—2004 · 41 hearings
HONOLULU — IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2002 · 37 hearings
GUAYNABO — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—2002 · 161 hearings
PHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2002 · 12 hearings
HAGATNA — IMMIGRATION COURT1999—2002 · 209 hearings
MEMPHIS — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2001 · 159 hearings
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—1999 · 51 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.

15%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,044 decisions · FY1987–FY2011

95% interval: 14% — 17%

granted:: 312
denied:: 1,732

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1987–FY2011 — 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 judge15% (2,044)
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 (7): 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
FY2011	2	100%	34% — 100%
FY2010	56	41%	29% — 54%
FY2009	59	29%	19% — 41%
FY2008	108	28%	20% — 37%
FY2007	108	13%	8% — 21%
FY2006	207	14%	10% — 19%
FY2005	226	15%	11% — 21%
FY2004	214	13%	9% — 18%
FY2003	268	10%	7% — 15%
FY2002	206	13%	9% — 18%
FY2001	139	9%	6% — 15%
FY2000	184	10%	7% — 16%
FY1999	126	12%	7% — 19%
FY1998	94	27%	19% — 36%
FY1997	31	26%	14% — 43%
FY1995	2	0%	0% — 66%
FY1994	1	0%	0% — 79%
FY1992	5	20%	4% — 62%
FY1991	6	0%	0% — 39%
FY1989	1	0%	0% — 79%
FY1987	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
HAITI	890	9%	8% — 11%
COLOMBIA	453	18%	15% — 22%
VENEZUELA	88	27%	19% — 37%
GUATEMALA	72	7%	3% — 15%
CUBA	71	31%	21% — 42%
CHINA	69	25%	16% — 36%
PERU	56	20%	11% — 32%
EL SALVADOR	49	10%	4% — 22%
NICARAGUA	30	10%	3% — 26%
ARGENTINA	26	4%	1% — 19%
MAURITANIA	23	17%	7% — 37%
HONDURAS	21	5%	1% — 23%
MEXICO	16	6%	1% — 28%
GUYANA	15	0%	0% — 20%
SOMALIA	14	57%	33% — 79%

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.

17 mo

median

half of cases: 12—24 mo

based on 2,044 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2010	56	26 mo	18—41
FY2009	59	25 mo	20—33
FY2008	108	22 mo	18—30
FY2007	108	21 mo	16—28
FY2006	207	19 mo	15—29
FY2005	226	22 mo	16—31
FY2004	214	18 mo	14—23
FY2003	268	16 mo	11—20
FY2002	206	15 mo	11—21
FY2001	139	13 mo	9—18

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	1,013
Summary Affirmance	691
Denied	561
Remand	271
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	106
Summarily Dismiss	85
Termination	72
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	47
Withdrawal of Appeal	46
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	42
Temporary Protected Status	35
Other	33
Granted	26
Terminate-DHS PD	25
Dismiss as Untimely	24
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	22
Sustain	16
Background Check Remand	15
Coercive Population Control	12
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	10
Deferred Enforced Departure	10
Moot Bond	9
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	8
Rejection	7
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	6
Grant with no Remand	5
Dismissed as Moot	2
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency	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.