Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Walton, Richard D.

LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing
December 21, 2023
Next hearing
none scheduled
Last decision
January 11, 2022
Courts worked at: 6

Worked here before

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.

18%

Asylum grant rate

of 4,153 decisions · FY1986–FY2021

95% interval: 16%19%

granted:
732
denied:
3,421

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1986–FY2021 — 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 judge18% (4,153)
  • The whole court — LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT26% (102,953)
  • 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

0%25%50%75%100%199520012006201120162021

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
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY20211817%6%39%
FY20204696%4%8%
FY20192132%1%5%
FY2018857%3%15%
FY20178713%7%21%
FY20164212%5%25%
FY20151182%0%6%
FY2014733%1%9%
FY20136813%7%23%
FY20125833%22%46%
FY20118328%19%38%
FY201013326%20%34%
FY200910338%29%48%
FY200810035%26%45%
FY200710650%41%59%
FY20069852%42%62%
FY20059933%25%43%
FY200418630%23%36%
FY200315833%26%41%
FY200211631%23%40%
FY200110736%28%46%
FY200013728%21%36%
FY199910529%21%38%
FY199826714%11%19%
FY19973989%6%12%
FY19965495%3%7%
FY199516315%11%22%
FY199410%0%79%
FY199110%0%79%
FY1990922%6%55%
FY198820%0%66%
FY198610%0%79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
EL SALVADOR7033%2%4%
GUATEMALA6866%4%8%
HONDURAS5034%3%6%
CHINA46038%33%42%
MEXICO4522%1%3%
ARMENIA23233%27%39%
IRAN10448%39%58%
INDONESIA9419%12%28%
PERU7130%20%41%
NICARAGUA6414%8%25%
INDIA5518%10%30%
BANGLADESH5315%8%27%
PHILIPPINES532%0%10%
PAKISTAN4914%7%27%
ETHIOPIA4564%50%77%

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.

11 mo

median

half of cases: 6—21 mo

based on 4,153 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY202046913 mo1114
FY20192139 mo710
FY2018855 mo414
FY2017875 mo47
FY2016424 mo35
FY201511810 mo811
FY2014737 mo411
FY20136828 mo1642
FY20125830 mo1646
FY20118344 mo2858

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 decisionAppeals
Dismiss Appeal/Affirm IJ's Decision1,393
Denied1,177
Remand1,171
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)655
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD588
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)353
Summary Affirmance324
Termination202
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA148
Sustain139
Other133
Granted128
Dismiss as Untimely111
Temporary Protected Status109
Summarily Dismiss86
Withdrawal of Appeal78
Background Check Remand76
Continued42
Administratively Closed-DHS PD42
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief42
Dismiss Soriano31
Grant with no Remand28
Terminate-DHS PD24
Moot Bond17
Rejection14
Coercive Population Control9
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal9
Granted Soriano5
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)4
Administratively Closed4
Conditional Grant--CPC Asylum3
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency3
Dismissed as Moot3
Other Soriano2
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal1
Summary Dismissal (o) Other1
Deferred Enforced Departure1
Denied Soriano1
Suspension Completion1

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.