Judge Dornell, Lisa

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: May 30, 2019
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: March 2, 2021

Courts worked at: 4

Worked here before

BALTIMORE — IMMIGRATION COURT1987—2019 · 84,988 hearings
PHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT1993—2005 · 250 hearings
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2003 · 1,052 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2001 · 42 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.

54%

Asylum grant rate

of 3,974 decisions · FY1995–FY2019

95% interval: 52% — 55%

granted:: 2,136
denied:: 1,838
other protection: withholding and the Convention Against Torture:: 1

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.

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1995–FY2019 — 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 judge54% (3,974)
The whole court — BALTIMORE — IMMIGRATION COURT40% (36,574)
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
FY2019	63	52%	40% — 64%
FY2018	201	64%	57% — 70%
FY2017	104	54%	44% — 63%
FY2016	83	60%	49% — 70%
FY2015	48	19%	10% — 32%
FY2014	93	55%	45% — 65%
FY2013	137	66%	57% — 73%
FY2012	91	64%	53% — 73%
FY2011	92	57%	46% — 66%
FY2010	95	54%	44% — 63%
FY2009	131	63%	55% — 71%
FY2008	163	44%	36% — 51%
FY2007	181	48%	41% — 55%
FY2006	287	47%	41% — 53%
FY2005	273	48%	42% — 54%
FY2004	272	45%	39% — 51%
FY2003	237	46%	40% — 53%
FY2002	234	52%	45% — 58%
FY2001	226	60%	53% — 66%
FY2000	133	68%	59% — 75%
FY1999	181	72%	65% — 78%
FY1998	84	65%	55% — 75%
FY1997	204	58%	51% — 64%
FY1996	228	49%	42% — 55%
FY1995	133	44%	35% — 52%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
CAMEROON	627	61%	57% — 65%
ETHIOPIA	605	76%	72% — 79%
EL SALVADOR	447	42%	38% — 47%
GUATEMALA	166	27%	20% — 34%
TOGO	165	58%	50% — 65%
CHINA	164	34%	27% — 41%
HONDURAS	124	37%	29% — 46%
CONGO	111	66%	57% — 74%
NIGERIA	93	30%	22% — 40%
LIBERIA	90	77%	67% — 84%
GUINEA	87	32%	23% — 43%
ERITREA	73	78%	67% — 86%
SOMALIA	71	80%	70% — 88%
PAKISTAN	64	55%	43% — 66%
IVORY COAST (COTE D'IVOIRE)	63	44%	33% — 57%

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.

13 mo

median

half of cases: 7—26 mo

based on 3,975 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2019	63	52 mo	42—56
FY2018	201	39 mo	31—45
FY2017	104	27 mo	25—34
FY2016	83	20 mo	18—23
FY2015	48	14 mo	9—17
FY2014	93	23 mo	12—32
FY2013	137	15 mo	7—31
FY2012	91	20 mo	10—29
FY2011	92	22 mo	13—38
FY2010	95	19 mo	13—50

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	930
Remand	611
Denied	559
Summary Affirmance	246
Background Check Remand	109
Termination	98
Withdrawal of Appeal	96
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	92
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	50
Sustain	49
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	46
Other	44
Summarily Dismiss	42
Granted	35
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	35
Temporary Protected Status	31
Dismiss as Untimely	12
Moot Bond	8
Deferred Enforced Departure	8
Terminate-DHS PD	7
Dismiss Soriano	6
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	5
Coercive Population Control	5
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	4
Rejection	4
Grant with no Remand	4
Administratively Closed	3
Continued	2
Denied Soriano	2
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Other Soriano	2
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	1
Dismissed as Moot	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.