Judge Brodsky, Richard F.

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: September 12, 2007
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: February 22, 2012

Courts worked at: 11

Worked here before

SAN ANTONIO — IMMIGRATION COURT1982—2007 · 41,179 hearings
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1992—2002 · 40 hearings
LAREDO — IMMIGRATION COURT1983—2001 · 2,096 hearings
FORT SNELLING — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—1995 · 48 hearings
SACRAMENTO — IMMIGRATION COURT1993—1994 · 19 hearings
LAS VEGAS — IMMIGRATION COURT1993—1994 · 37 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—1990 · 77 hearings
MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT1990—1990 · 92 hearings
LOS FRESNOS — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—1989 · 554 hearings
ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1985—1988 · 59 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1987—1988 · 46 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.

25%

Asylum grant rate

of 464 decisions · FY1984–FY2002

95% interval: 21% — 29%

granted:: 115
denied:: 349

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1984–FY2002 — 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 judge25% (464)
The whole court — SAN ANTONIO — IMMIGRATION COURT30% (11,479)
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 (1): 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
FY2002	16	25%	10% — 49%
FY2001	11	82%	52% — 95%
FY2000	10	30%	11% — 60%
FY1999	26	35%	19% — 54%
FY1998	21	33%	17% — 55%
FY1997	13	23%	8% — 50%
FY1996	24	33%	18% — 53%
FY1995	37	19%	9% — 34%
FY1994	18	11%	3% — 33%
FY1993	34	26%	15% — 43%
FY1992	34	9%	3% — 23%
FY1991	50	32%	21% — 46%
FY1990	52	29%	18% — 42%
FY1989	37	24%	13% — 40%
FY1988	53	17%	9% — 29%
FY1987	27	7%	2% — 23%
FY1986	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
EL SALVADOR	98	3%	1% — 9%
NICARAGUA	83	29%	20% — 39%
GUATEMALA	78	10%	5% — 19%
IRAN	32	56%	39% — 72%
HONDURAS	29	7%	2% — 22%
INDIA	14	14%	4% — 40%
NIGERIA	10	20%	6% — 51%
PAKISTAN	9	11%	2% — 44%
MEXICO	9	44%	19% — 73%
RUSSIA	8	88%	53% — 98%
CUBA	6	17%	3% — 56%
LEBANON	6	17%	3% — 56%
JORDAN	6	0%	0% — 39%
CHINA	5	0%	0% — 43%
ALBANIA	4	75%	30% — 95%

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.

10 mo

median

half of cases: 7—14 mo

based on 464 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY1995	37	13 mo	10—17
FY1993	34	10 mo	4—13
FY1992	34	11 mo	8—13
FY1991	50	9 mo	8—13
FY1990	52	8 mo	6—11
FY1989	37	9 mo	6—31
FY1988	53	10 mo	5—24

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	487
Withdrawal of Appeal	224
Remand	213
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	188
Denied	130
Summary Affirmance	81
Sustain	75
Temporary Protected Status	63
Granted	61
Other	57
Termination	34
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	32
Dismiss Soriano	31
American Baptist Church Settlement	19
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	15
Summarily Dismiss	15
Dismiss as Untimely	13
Continued	9
Rejection	5
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	5
Moot Bond	4
Grant with no Remand	3
Terminate-DHS PD	3
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Other Soriano	2
Granted Soriano	2
Denied Soriano	2
MB	1
Dismissed as Moot	1
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	1
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	1
Administratively Closed	1
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	1
RET	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.