Judge Horn, Michael C.

Hearing cases: hearings are scheduled

Last hearing: July 31, 2026
Next hearing: August 6, 2026 · 4,241 scheduled in all
Last decision: May 1, 2026

Courts worked at: 17

Hearings scheduled here

MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT1974—2026 · 122,158 hearings

Worked here before

KANSAS CITY — IMMIGRATION COURT2010—2021 · 70 hearings
PEARSALL — IMMIGRATION COURT2015—2015 · 104 hearings
CONROE — IMMIGRATION COURT2014—2014 · 122 hearings
CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT1999—2009 · 96 hearings
Orlando — IMMIGRATION COURT1988—2004 · 116 hearings
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—2002 · 100 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2002 · 29 hearings
GUAYNABO — IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2002 · 27 hearings
MEMPHIS — IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2002 · 85 hearings
HAGATNA — IMMIGRATION COURT1999—1999 · 68 hearings
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT1993—1994 · 29 hearings
NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT1986—1992 · 140 hearings
HARLINGEN — IMMIGRATION COURT1980—1991 · 3,375 hearings
ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1985—1988 · 47 hearings
LOS FRESNOS — IMMIGRATION COURT1981—1988 · 333 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT1981—1987 · 13 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.

23%

Asylum grant rate

of 3,893 decisions · FY1974–FY2026

95% interval: 21% — 24%

granted:: 886
denied:: 3,007
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.

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 judge23% (3,893)
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 (5): 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
FY2026partial	2	0%	0% — 66%
FY2025	10	0%	0% — 28%
FY2024	20	30%	15% — 52%
FY2023	21	43%	24% — 63%
FY2022	39	36%	23% — 52%
FY2021	20	10%	3% — 30%
FY2020	148	2%	1% — 6%
FY2019	359	2%	1% — 4%
FY2018	86	23%	16% — 33%
FY2017	44	68%	53% — 80%
FY2016	10	80%	49% — 94%
FY2015	7	0%	0% — 35%
FY2014	14	36%	16% — 61%
FY2013	10	50%	24% — 76%
FY2012	19	47%	27% — 68%
FY2011	27	48%	31% — 66%
FY2010	47	36%	24% — 50%
FY2009	86	33%	24% — 43%
FY2008	99	19%	13% — 28%
FY2007	200	39%	33% — 46%
FY2006	141	21%	15% — 28%
FY2005	192	29%	23% — 35%
FY2004	181	25%	19% — 32%
FY2003	189	36%	29% — 43%
FY2002	151	27%	21% — 35%
FY2001	102	47%	38% — 57%
FY2000	74	41%	30% — 52%
FY1999	36	42%	27% — 58%
FY1998	46	24%	14% — 38%
FY1997	76	16%	9% — 26%
FY1996	114	10%	5% — 16%
FY1995	115	17%	11% — 24%
FY1994	101	13%	8% — 21%
FY1993	200	6%	3% — 10%
FY1992	171	12%	8% — 18%
FY1991	184	8%	5% — 13%
FY1990	157	13%	8% — 19%
FY1989	147	37%	29% — 45%
FY1988	209	40%	33% — 46%
FY1987	28	36%	21% — 54%
FY1986	9	0%	0% — 30%
FY1985	1	0%	0% — 79%
FY1984	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
HAITI	1,063	14%	12% — 17%
NICARAGUA	612	18%	16% — 22%
COLOMBIA	525	46%	41% — 50%
GUATEMALA	442	9%	6% — 12%
CUBA	324	30%	25% — 35%
HONDURAS	265	10%	7% — 14%
EL SALVADOR	157	17%	12% — 24%
VENEZUELA	89	45%	35% — 55%
PERU	89	38%	29% — 49%
CHINA	71	45%	34% — 57%
ARGENTINA	23	4%	1% — 21%
MEXICO	23	0%	0% — 14%
ALBANIA	20	50%	30% — 70%
IRAN	11	64%	35% — 85%
BRAZIL	10	20%	6% — 51%

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.

28 mo

median

half of cases: 16—43 mo

based on 3,894 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2022	39	94 mo	82—141
FY2020	148	51 mo	41—64
FY2019	359	47 mo	38—60
FY2018	86	41 mo	29—45
FY2017	44	33 mo	27—37
FY2010	48	66 mo	37—80
FY2009	86	35 mo	24—64
FY2008	99	36 mo	24—57
FY2007	200	38 mo	26—56
FY2006	141	33 mo	23—46

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.

5
cases waiting: 36 mo
already waited, median

Half have waited between 31 mo and 36 mo.
2 (40%) have a hearing scheduled later than the date this data was collected. The rest have no upcoming event in the release.

The queue counts proceedings with no decision in the release. The figure runs from the NTA date to the release cutoff — it is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will. Shown separately: how many have a hearing scheduled after the cutoff. The rest have no upcoming event in the release and should not be read alongside live cases.

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	1,715
Denied	621
Remand	617
Summary Affirmance	399
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	305
Granted	167
Withdrawal of Appeal	150
Deferred Enforced Departure	90
Other	84
Summarily Dismiss	76
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	75
Temporary Protected Status	68
Termination	61
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	39
Sustain	35
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	33
Terminate-DHS PD	29
Continued	22
Dismiss as Untimely	20
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	15
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	15
Dismiss Soriano	10
American Baptist Church Settlement	8
Background Check Remand	8
Rejection	8
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	7
Grant with no Remand	4
Moot Bond	4
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency	3
Granted Soriano	2
Administratively Closed	2
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	2
ADD	2
RET	2
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.