Judge Mchugh, R. Kevin

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: May 21, 2009
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: November 16, 2009

Courts worked at: 8

Worked here before

Orlando — IMMIGRATION COURT1980—2009 · 36,541 hearings
MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—2007 · 423 hearings
BRADENTON — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2006 · 64 hearings
NEW ORLEANS — IMMIGRATION COURT1973—1996 · 3,246 hearings
OAKDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT1978—1996 · 22,946 hearings
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT1988—1991 · 65 hearings
MEMPHIS — IMMIGRATION COURT1976—1990 · 337 hearings
HOUSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT1988—1989 · 12 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.

24%

Asylum grant rate

of 1,219 decisions · FY1983–FY2008

95% interval: 21% — 26%

granted:: 287
denied:: 932

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1983–FY2008 — 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 judge24% (1,219)
The whole court — NEW ORLEANS — IMMIGRATION COURT23% (10,799)
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

Grant rate by fiscal year
Period	decisions	granted	95% interval
FY2007	25	28%	14% — 48%
FY2006	78	22%	14% — 32%
FY2005	43	5%	1% — 15%
FY2004	3	33%	6% — 79%
FY2003	18	0%	0% — 18%
FY2002	39	5%	1% — 17%
FY2001	82	4%	1% — 10%
FY2000	62	13%	7% — 23%
FY1999	37	16%	8% — 31%
FY1998	87	17%	11% — 27%
FY1997	106	10%	6% — 18%
FY1996	10	10%	2% — 40%
FY1995	9	11%	2% — 44%
FY1994	2	0%	0% — 66%
FY1993	6	0%	0% — 39%
FY1992	4	0%	0% — 49%
FY1991	39	33%	21% — 49%
FY1990	100	38%	29% — 48%
FY1989	164	27%	21% — 35%
FY1988	230	47%	41% — 54%
FY1987	61	13%	7% — 24%
FY1986	11	0%	0% — 26%
FY1985	3	0%	0% — 56%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
NICARAGUA	293	54%	48% — 60%
HAITI	174	3%	1% — 7%
CUBA	169	12%	8% — 18%
COLOMBIA	69	12%	6% — 21%
EL SALVADOR	63	3%	1% — 11%
IRAN	40	45%	31% — 60%
GUATEMALA	34	0%	0% — 10%
JAMAICA	28	0%	0% — 12%
HONDURAS	26	12%	4% — 29%
NIGERIA	22	5%	1% — 22%
LEBANON	22	32%	16% — 53%
VIETNAM	15	40%	20% — 64%
PERU	15	7%	1% — 30%
RUSSIA	14	43%	21% — 67%
CHINA	14	50%	27% — 73%

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.

8 mo

median

half of cases: 4—17 mo

based on 1,219 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2006	78	21 mo	16—24
FY2005	43	11 mo	6—26
FY2002	39	8 mo	4—16
FY2001	82	7 mo	4—10
FY2000	62	4 mo	2—11
FY1999	37	10 mo	3—17
FY1998	87	3 mo	2—5
FY1997	106	4 mo	3—5
FY1991	39	12 mo	6—14
FY1990	100	10 mo	8—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	1,449
Withdrawal of Appeal	425
Remand	289
Denied	222
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	143
Other	117
Summary Affirmance	109
Dismiss Soriano	92
Sustain	86
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	69
Granted	69
Temporary Protected Status	33
Dismiss as Untimely	26
Moot Bond	21
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	19
Summarily Dismiss	17
Rejection	12
Termination	11
Denied Soriano	9
American Baptist Church Settlement	7
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	5
Background Check Remand	4
Grant with no Remand	3
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	3
MB	2
Granted Soriano	2
Other Soriano	2
Terminate-DHS PD	2
Dismissed as Moot	1
Administrative Return	1
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	1
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	1
AFD	1
Summary Dismissal (o) Other	1
Deferred Enforced Departure	1
Continued	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.