Judge Truman, Phillip M.
Hearing cases: hearings are scheduled
- Last hearing
- July 31, 2026
- Next hearing
- August 4, 2026 · 1,189 scheduled in all
- Last decision
- July 25, 2026
Courts worked at: 7
Hearings scheduled here
- WEST VALLEY — IMMIGRATION COURT2016—2026 · 39,931 hearings
- PORTLAND — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2026 · 5,446 hearings
Worked here before
- TACOMA — IMMIGRATION COURT2018—2018 · 128 hearings
- LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT2018—2018 · 140 hearings
- OTERO — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2017 · 93 hearings
- ELOY — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2017 · 19 hearings
- CONROE — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2017 · 139 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.
44%
Asylum grant rate
of 2,173 decisions · FY1992–FY2026
95% interval: 42% — 46%
- granted:
- 964
- denied:
- 1,209
How this percentage is calculated
How this compares
- This judge44% (2,173)
- The whole court — WEST VALLEY — IMMIGRATION COURT47% (8,553)
- 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 (6): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.
Show as a table
| Period | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2026partial | 2 | 0% | 0% — 66% |
| FY2025 | 233 | 42% | 36% — 48% |
| FY2024 | 364 | 76% | 72% — 80% |
| FY2023 | 361 | 83% | 78% — 86% |
| FY2022 | 186 | 76% | 69% — 81% |
| FY2021 | 255 | 28% | 23% — 34% |
| FY2020 | 239 | 13% | 9% — 18% |
| FY2019 | 307 | 10% | 7% — 14% |
| FY2018 | 156 | 8% | 5% — 14% |
| FY2017 | 65 | 5% | 2% — 13% |
| FY2011 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY2010 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY2007 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY2004 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
| FY1992 | 1 | 0% | 0% — 79% |
By applicant nationality
| Nationality | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| VENEZUELA | 978 | 87% | 85% — 89% |
| MEXICO | 469 | 3% | 1% — 4% |
| EL SALVADOR | 175 | 2% | 1% — 6% |
| GUATEMALA | 167 | 3% | 1% — 7% |
| COLOMBIA | 95 | 18% | 11% — 27% |
| HONDURAS | 85 | 2% | 1% — 8% |
| PERU | 54 | 2% | 0% — 10% |
| CHINA | 16 | 44% | 23% — 67% |
| INDIA | 15 | 33% | 15% — 58% |
| NICARAGUA | 15 | 53% | 30% — 75% |
| IRAQ | 11 | 91% | 62% — 98% |
| RUSSIA | 9 | 78% | 45% — 94% |
| CUBA | 6 | 83% | 44% — 97% |
| ECUADOR | 6 | 33% | 10% — 70% |
| HAITI | 5 | 0% | 0% — 43% |
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.
24 mo
median
half of cases: 17—31 mo
based on 2,173 cases
| Decided in | Cases | median | half of cases, mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2025 | 233 | 34 mo | 29—37 |
| FY2024 | 364 | 27 mo | 24—30 |
| FY2023 | 361 | 19 mo | 16—21 |
| FY2022 | 186 | 15 mo | 13—27 |
| FY2021 | 255 | 24 mo | 19—29 |
| FY2020 | 239 | 20 mo | 14—29 |
| FY2019 | 307 | 23 mo | 12—34 |
| FY2018 | 156 | 27 mo | 19—38 |
| FY2017 | 65 | 26 mo | 12—34 |
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.
- 468
- cases waiting
- 41 mo
- already waited, median
- Half have waited between 32 mo and 51 mo.
- 126 (27%) 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.
| BIA decision | Appeals |
|---|---|
| Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision | 497 |
| Remand | 147 |
| Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted) | 85 |
| Termination | 75 |
| Denied | 73 |
| Terminate-DHS PD | 48 |
| Summary Affirmance | 39 |
| Withdrawal of Appeal | 34 |
| Summary Dismissal (e) no brief | 33 |
| Summarily Dismiss | 18 |
| Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal | 16 |
| Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA | 15 |
| Grant with no Remand | 10 |
| SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD | 8 |
| ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency | 3 |
| Administratively Closed | 3 |
| Other | 2 |
| Background Check Remand | 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.