Judge Rocco, Michael

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: June 8, 2012
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: October 23, 2012

Courts worked at: 8

Worked here before

BUFFALO — IMMIGRATION COURT1988—2012 · 44,614 hearings
FLORENCE — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2009 · 42 hearings
ELOY — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2009 · 36 hearings
CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2009 · 10 hearings
AURORA — IMMIGRATION COURT2007—2007 · 11 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2005 · 127 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT2001—2003 · 43 hearings
NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—1994 · 84 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.

19%

Asylum grant rate

of 506 decisions · FY1992–FY2013

95% interval: 16% — 23%

granted:: 97
denied:: 409

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1992–FY2013 — 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 judge19% (506)
The whole court — BUFFALO — IMMIGRATION COURT25% (7,028)
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
FY2012	2	0%	0% — 66%
FY2011	3	33%	6% — 79%
FY2010	6	33%	10% — 70%
FY2009	26	38%	22% — 57%
FY2008	30	60%	42% — 75%
FY2007	11	55%	28% — 79%
FY2006	18	0%	0% — 18%
FY2005	32	9%	3% — 24%
FY2004	49	0%	0% — 7%
FY2003	69	9%	4% — 18%
FY2002	36	0%	0% — 10%
FY2001	25	16%	6% — 35%
FY2000	42	17%	8% — 31%
FY1999	28	39%	24% — 58%
FY1998	43	23%	13% — 38%
FY1997	39	26%	15% — 41%
FY1996	21	19%	8% — 40%
FY1995	19	21%	9% — 43%
FY1994	6	17%	3% — 56%
FY1992	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
CHINA	64	38%	27% — 50%
PAKISTAN	29	0%	0% — 12%
RUSSIA	20	30%	15% — 52%
ALBANIA	19	5%	1% — 25%
UKRAINE	18	17%	6% — 39%
GUATEMALA	18	6%	1% — 26%
PERU	14	7%	1% — 31%
BANGLADESH	13	31%	13% — 58%
IRAQ	13	23%	8% — 50%
Former Countries	13	0%	0% — 23%
SRI LANKA	12	0%	0% — 24%
ALGERIA	12	42%	19% — 68%
SUDAN	11	18%	5% — 48%
INDIA	11	9%	2% — 38%
ARGENTINA	11	0%	0% — 26%

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.

19 mo

median

half of cases: 12—28 mo

based on 506 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2008	30	30 mo	19—107
FY2005	32	18 mo	13—42
FY2004	49	21 mo	13—29
FY2003	69	17 mo	13—22
FY2002	36	20 mo	10—30
FY2000	42	20 mo	16—30
FY1998	43	13 mo	10—17
FY1997	39	13 mo	10—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	357
Remand	268
Denied	183
Summary Affirmance	133
Withdrawal of Appeal	129
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	92
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	83
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	49
Termination	45
Other	42
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	30
Summarily Dismiss	30
Dismiss Soriano	26
Granted	20
Rejection	13
Grant with no Remand	13
Sustain	12
Dismiss as Untimely	12
Background Check Remand	6
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	5
Continued	4
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	3
Administratively Closed	3
Temporary Protected Status	2
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	2
Moot Bond	2
Other Soriano	2
Deferred Enforced Departure	2
Terminate-DHS PD	2
Dismissed as Moot	2
Denied Soriano	1
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	1
Granted Soriano	1
Coercive Population Control	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.