Judge Ramirez, Laura L.
Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years
- Last hearing
- December 21, 2021
- Next hearing
- none scheduled
- Last decision
- April 2, 2019
Courts worked at: 7
Worked here before
- SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1982—2021 · 56,897 hearings
- CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT2016—2017 · 73 hearings
- TACOMA — IMMIGRATION COURT2010—2017 · 152 hearings
- NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT2016—2017 · 26 hearings
- PEARSALL — IMMIGRATION COURT2015—2015 · 16 hearings
- CONROE — IMMIGRATION COURT2014—2014 · 153 hearings
- EL PASO — IMMIGRATION COURT2012—2012 · 25 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.
72%
Asylum grant rate
of 2,478 decisions · FY1984–FY2019
95% interval: 70% — 74%
- granted:
- 1,780
- denied:
- 698
The period has closed
This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1984–FY2019 — not what happens in the court today. Asylum rules and the mix of cases have changed since.
How this percentage is calculated
How this compares
- This judge72% (2,478)
- The whole court — SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT56% (89,278)
- 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
| Period | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2019 | 50 | 72% | 58% — 83% |
| FY2018 | 117 | 86% | 79% — 91% |
| FY2017 | 58 | 90% | 79% — 95% |
| FY2016 | 161 | 88% | 82% — 92% |
| FY2015 | 105 | 97% | 92% — 99% |
| FY2014 | 45 | 91% | 79% — 96% |
| FY2013 | 78 | 79% | 69% — 87% |
| FY2012 | 103 | 83% | 75% — 89% |
| FY2011 | 96 | 64% | 54% — 72% |
| FY2010 | 77 | 79% | 69% — 87% |
| FY2009 | 80 | 63% | 52% — 72% |
| FY2008 | 111 | 50% | 41% — 60% |
| FY2007 | 128 | 66% | 58% — 74% |
| FY2006 | 113 | 76% | 67% — 83% |
| FY2005 | 133 | 56% | 47% — 64% |
| FY2004 | 192 | 56% | 49% — 63% |
| FY2003 | 177 | 59% | 52% — 66% |
| FY2002 | 151 | 83% | 76% — 88% |
| FY2001 | 120 | 80% | 72% — 86% |
| FY2000 | 134 | 70% | 62% — 77% |
| FY1999 | 90 | 72% | 62% — 80% |
| FY1998 | 108 | 49% | 40% — 58% |
| FY1997 | 41 | 88% | 74% — 95% |
| FY1996 | 2 | 50% | 9% — 91% |
| FY1995 | 2 | 0% | 0% — 66% |
| FY1991 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY1990 | 1 | 100% | 21% — 100% |
| FY1988 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY1987 | 1 | 100% | 21% — 100% |
| FY1984 | 2 | 50% | 9% — 91% |
By applicant nationality
| Nationality | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| INDIA | 658 | 76% | 73% — 80% |
| MEXICO | 247 | 53% | 46% — 59% |
| EL SALVADOR | 202 | 55% | 49% — 62% |
| GUATEMALA | 200 | 70% | 63% — 76% |
| CHINA | 175 | 74% | 67% — 80% |
| NEPAL | 71 | 82% | 71% — 89% |
| HONDURAS | 61 | 66% | 53% — 76% |
| ERITREA | 57 | 96% | 88% — 99% |
| INDONESIA | 54 | 78% | 65% — 87% |
| FIJI | 54 | 59% | 46% — 71% |
| ARMENIA | 42 | 69% | 54% — 81% |
| IRAN | 36 | 86% | 71% — 94% |
| ETHIOPIA | 35 | 89% | 74% — 95% |
| PERU | 32 | 88% | 72% — 95% |
| SOMALIA | 30 | 93% | 79% — 98% |
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.
22 mo
median
half of cases: 10—41 mo
based on 2,478 cases
| Decided in | Cases | median | half of cases, mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2019 | 50 | 49 mo | 13—73 |
| FY2018 | 117 | 48 mo | 38—66 |
| FY2017 | 58 | 35 mo | 29—61 |
| FY2016 | 161 | 18 mo | 16—24 |
| FY2015 | 105 | 12 mo | 9—41 |
| FY2014 | 45 | 32 mo | 16—53 |
| FY2013 | 78 | 40 mo | 13—52 |
| FY2012 | 103 | 37 mo | 14—59 |
| FY2011 | 96 | 29 mo | 15—49 |
| FY2010 | 77 | 20 mo | 7—40 |
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.
| BIA decision | Appeals |
|---|---|
| Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision | 430 |
| Remand | 428 |
| Denied | 364 |
| Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted) | 199 |
| SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD | 171 |
| Summary Affirmance | 105 |
| Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days) | 75 |
| Withdrawal of Appeal | 58 |
| Background Check Remand | 51 |
| Termination | 37 |
| Other | 33 |
| Sustain | 33 |
| Administratively Closed-DHS PD | 22 |
| Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA | 22 |
| Temporary Protected Status | 14 |
| Summarily Dismiss | 10 |
| Grant with no Remand | 8 |
| Granted | 8 |
| Administratively Closed | 7 |
| Dismiss Soriano | 3 |
| Terminate-DHS PD | 3 |
| Continued | 3 |
| Moot Bond | 3 |
| Summary Dismissal (e) no brief | 2 |
| Rejection | 1 |
| SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e) | 1 |
| Dismiss as Untimely | 1 |
| Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal | 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.