Judge Tadal, Mirlande

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: January 5, 2023
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: January 31, 2025

Courts worked at: 15

Worked here before

NEWARK — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2023 · 1,227 hearings
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2022 · 72,066 hearings
PHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2012 · 30 hearings
BUFFALO — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2009 · 51 hearings
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1992—2007 · 3,786 hearings
Orlando — IMMIGRATION COURT2002—2007 · 179 hearings
HARLINGEN — IMMIGRATION COURT2004—2006 · 1,479 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2005 · 191 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT2001—2005 · 117 hearings
NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2005 · 68 hearings
BOSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2004 · 160 hearings
GUAYNABO — IMMIGRATION COURT2002—2003 · 68 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2003 · 53 hearings
NEW ORLEANS — IMMIGRATION COURT2003—2003 · 59 hearings
ATLANTA — IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2002 · 24 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.

27%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,878 decisions · FY1994–FY2023

95% interval: 25% — 29%

granted:: 778
denied:: 2,100

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1994–FY2023 — 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 judge27% (2,878)
The whole court — NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT57% (230,016)
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 (2): 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
FY2023	11	27%	10% — 57%
FY2022	25	24%	11% — 43%
FY2021	22	0%	0% — 15%
FY2020	61	3%	1% — 11%
FY2019	62	10%	5% — 20%
FY2018	37	30%	17% — 46%
FY2017	88	28%	20% — 39%
FY2016	124	33%	25% — 42%
FY2015	112	44%	35% — 53%
FY2014	68	41%	30% — 53%
FY2013	77	10%	5% — 19%
FY2012	74	11%	6% — 20%
FY2011	59	8%	4% — 18%
FY2010	71	30%	20% — 41%
FY2009	53	21%	12% — 33%
FY2008	81	22%	15% — 32%
FY2007	108	18%	12% — 26%
FY2006	108	26%	19% — 35%
FY2005	90	16%	9% — 24%
FY2004	139	28%	21% — 36%
FY2003	159	22%	16% — 29%
FY2002	159	26%	20% — 34%
FY2001	171	50%	43% — 58%
FY2000	169	60%	53% — 67%
FY1999	160	38%	31% — 46%
FY1998	108	31%	23% — 41%
FY1997	207	22%	17% — 28%
FY1996	273	11%	8% — 15%
FY1995	1	0%	0% — 79%
FY1994	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
CHINA	483	24%	21% — 28%
HAITI	144	8%	5% — 14%
SRI LANKA	135	79%	72% — 85%
NIGERIA	121	29%	22% — 38%
COLOMBIA	100	9%	5% — 16%
ALBANIA	97	31%	23% — 41%
MEXICO	91	1%	0% — 6%
EL SALVADOR	90	1%	0% — 6%
INDIA	79	10%	5% — 19%
BANGLADESH	76	29%	20% — 40%
GUINEA	70	39%	28% — 50%
SOMALIA	69	62%	51% — 73%
GHANA	67	18%	11% — 29%
GUATEMALA	66	6%	2% — 15%
HONDURAS	66	2%	0% — 8%

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.

5 mo

median

half of cases: 3—11 mo

based on 2,878 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2020	61	13 mo	7—43
FY2019	62	13 mo	9—23
FY2018	37	15 mo	11—33
FY2017	88	9 mo	6—14
FY2016	124	10 mo	8—15
FY2015	112	6 mo	5—7
FY2014	68	5 mo	3—7
FY2013	77	7 mo	5—12
FY2012	74	6 mo	4—11
FY2011	59	9 mo	4—13

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	1,049
Denied	385
Remand	341
Summary Affirmance	156
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	134
Withdrawal of Appeal	96
Sustain	83
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	65
Termination	65
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	63
Other	41
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	34
Granted	32
Summarily Dismiss	31
Moot Bond	19
Dismiss Soriano	16
Grant with no Remand	10
Dismiss as Untimely	10
Background Check Remand	10
Coercive Population Control	8
Terminate-DHS PD	7
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	7
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	5
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	5
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	5
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	4
Rejection	3
Continued	3
Temporary Protected Status	2
Denied Soriano	2
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency	1
Administratively Closed	1
Granted Soriano	1
Deferred Enforced Departure	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.