Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data
← All judges

Judge Hallauer, Scott F.

Pearsall Immigration Court

EOIR data through September 30, 2026 · built October 21, 2026 · What these dates mean

Hearing cases: hearings are scheduled

New judge: the EOIR record was created May 28, 2026

Last hearing
September 30, 2026
Next hearing
October 1, 2026 · 35 scheduled in all
Last decision
September 30, 2026
First hearing
July 8, 2026
Now sitting at
New York Immigration Court
Courts worked at: 3

Hearings scheduled here

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".

The record-creation date is the only date of a judge's appearance the release contains; it is not an appointment date. With few decisions so far, the grant rate describes sample spread rather than the judge's strictness.

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, a transfer and an extended absence cannot be told apart — only what the calendar shows is stated here.

How this is counted

Hearings are scheduled two to three years out, so an empty calendar for a working judge is rare; but for a judge who went quiet in the last few months it may simply be the data lagging. The lookup table's "active" flag is not used: it disagrees with the calendar for a third of judges.

0%

Asylum grant rate

of 50 decisions · FY2026–FY2026

95% interval: 0% — 7%

granted:
0
denied:
50
How this percentage is calculated

Grant rate = granted / (granted + denied). Administrative closures, withdrawals, abandonment and "not adjudicated" are excluded from the denominator. What is counted is a decision per proceeding, not per application: asylum, withholding and CAT protection are almost always asked for together, so withholding and CAT grants are counted separately from asylum. The U.S. fiscal year runs October 1 – September 30.

How this compares

  • This judge0% (50)
  • The whole court — Pearsall Immigration Court20% (7,108)
  • All U.S. courts33% (1,390,081)

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%2026

U.S. fiscal year: October 1 – September 30.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY2026500%0% — 7%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
Mexico110%<1% — 26%
Venezuela100%0% — 28%
Honduras80%0% — 32%
Nicaragua50%0% — 43%
Cuba30%0% — 56%
Guatemala30%0% — 56%
El Salvador20%0% — 66%
Colombia20%0% — 66%
Egypt10%0% — 79%
Ecuador10%0% — 79%
Yemen10%0% — 79%
Holland10%0% — 79%
Peru10%0% — 79%
Costa Rica10%0% — 79%

Timing and waits

How long each stage of a case takes before this judge. Every figure is a median: half of cases are faster, half slower. Data as of September 30, 2026; these are past and current cases, not a forecast for yours.

this judgenationwide

How long decided cases took

from the NTA to the decision

limited data · cases decided: 50

4 mo
5.5 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 22 mo
half of cases: 3—24 mo
Cases decided
50
Half of cases
3—24 mo
The whole court
4 mo
Nationwide
22 mo · half: 11—39 mo

Cases decided this year may have begun a decade ago, so this is not a forecast for a case filed today.

The NTA is the charging document; serving it opens the case in court. The figure is a median, not a mean: durations have a long tail, and a few decade-long cases would pull a mean far from the typical case.

How long undecided cases have already waited

from the NTA to the data cutoff

limited data · proceedings in the queue: 64

3 mo
11 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 35 mo
half of proceedings: 2—13 mo
Proceedings in the queue
64
Half of proceedings
2—13 mo
The whole court
51 d
Nationwide
35 mo · half: 26—46 mo
Hearing set after the cutoff
68.8% (56.6% — 78.8%) · nationwide 84.0%

Decided cases and waiting cases are different cases: the first have already left the queue, the second are still in it, so these two durations can differ in either direction.

The queue counts proceedings with no decision yet in the release. It is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will.

Shown separately is the share with a hearing scheduled after the cutoff: the rest have no future event in the release at all, and cannot be read as live alongside these.

When the nearest hearing is set

from the data cutoff to the nearest hearing

too few to tell
nationwide 6 mo
fewer than 50 cases
Cases with a date set
35
The whole court
7 d
Nationwide
6 mo · half: 2—14 mo

Fewer than 50 cases have a date set. There is nothing to base a median on: it would rest on two or three rows.

Hearings set shortly after the cutoff have already happened by the time you read this. The count here is of cases, while the queue above counts proceedings, so the two figures need not agree. The horizon describes the docket, not the speed of the court.

Rows attached to cases already decided are excluded — the release keeps them, and with them the count of those waiting would be a tenth higher. The judge and court come from the schedule row itself: whoever will hold the hearing, not whoever the proceeding is assigned to. Cases where the person is detained have a hearing within days, the rest within months, and courts at detention centres consist almost entirely of the former. The median is only given from fifty cases up: below that it rests on two or three rows.

From a master calendar hearing to the individual hearing

from a master calendar hearing to the one set after it

limited data · hearings followed by an individual hearing: 54

22 d
14 times shorter than nationwidenationwide 10 mo
half: 18—44 d
Master calendar hearings in the year
321
Followed by an individual hearing
16.8% (13.1% — 21.3%) · 54 of 321
To the individual hearing, half of cases
18—44 d
The whole court
17 d
Nationwide
10 mo · half: 2—23 mo
    What was scheduled after a master calendar hearing: share of hearings and median gap
    What was scheduled nexthearingssharemedian gap
    An individual hearing5416.8%13.1% — 21.3%14.6% nationwide22 d
    Another master calendar13843.0%37.7% — 48.5%53.3% nationwide4 mo
    Nothing: the proceeding is over5517.1%13.4% — 21.6%26.8% nationwide—
    Nothing: no hearing set yet7423.1%18.8% — 28.0%5.3% nationwide—

    Under each share — the 95% interval.

    The figures cover master calendar hearings over the last twelve months of the release and what was set after each of them. The shares describe hearings, not cases: one case passes through several master hearings in a year and is counted as many times.

    The next hearing has usually not happened yet: its date can be moved. A separate line shows after how many hearings nothing is scheduled — either the proceeding is over or the calendar has not been filled in, and towards the end of the window the second share grows simply because the calendar has not caught up. Cases where the person is detained move more than twenty times faster than the rest, and courts at detention centres consist almost entirely of them. A slot counts the cases of one judge at one time: you go to your judge's courtroom, not to the building. No hearing dates are shown here in any form. The median is only given from fifty hearings up.

    In absentia decisions

    Removal cases completed without the respondent in the room. This is not about a judge's strictness: attendance depends on whether the person is detained, whether notice reached them and whether they have counsel.

    0% of proceedings ended in absentia — 0 of 162.

    • This judge0% (162)
    • The whole court0% (158,890)
    • All U.S. courts19% (11,724,527)
    Share of in absentia decisions by fiscal year
    Fiscal yearProceedingsIn absentiaShare
    FY202616200%

    The denominator is every completed removal proceeding (RMV): other proceeding types almost never end in absentia. The headline share covers the whole history, while the table shows the latest fiscal years by the proceeding's completion date. An in absentia order can be challenged by a motion to reopen.

    Full statisticsMotions, adjournment reasons, appeals to the BIA, three-member panels and second rounds after a remand.

    Motions

    What the judge does with requests made along the way: continue the hearing, allow appearance by video, terminate the case, put it back on the calendar. Judges differ more here than in the asylum grant rate.

    No decided motions in this release

    Adjournment reasons

    Why a hearing did not go ahead, and how far it pushed the case. The court assigns the reason itself; a hearing counts as adjourned when another one follows.

    Of 526 hearings with a stated reason in October 2025 — September 2026, 274 were adjourned (52%).

    Adjournment reasons: share of all adjournments and median days to the next hearing
    ReasonAdjournmentsnow / beforeShareOctober 2025 — September 2026NationallyFollow-upMedian days
    IJ reassignment164059.9%54.0% — 65.5%14.3%10.5%63%11449–163118 nationally
    MC to IC - merits hearing34012.4%9.0% — 16.8%11.9%10.3%69%2016–23287 nationally
    IJ completion at hearing30010.9%7.8% — 15.2%9.0%4.5%20%72–2237 nationally

    The upper figure in a cell covers October 2025 — September 2026; the lower one and “was” cover October 2021 — September 2025.

    Under the share — the 95% interval; under the median — the quartiles.

    The reason does not assign blame: "respondent to seek representation" covers both a person looking for counsel and a court granting time to look. A dash means the window holds too few adjournments to name a share.

    How this is counted

    The recent window and the years before it are shown apart: adjournment practice changes faster than a case runs, and it is not only the frequencies that move but the reasons themselves, in different directions. Case-completion codes (8A, 8B, 8C) are separated from genuine continuances by behaviour rather than by wording: after them another hearing rarely follows, while after preparation continuances it almost always does. That is what the "follow-up" column shows, and a low value means "the case usually ended here", not "the adjournment failed". The median days figure is how far this reason pushed the next hearing; half the cases fall between the quartiles shown.

    What became of appeals to the BIA

    An immigration judge's decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The key to this table is who filed: the same outcome means opposite things when the respondent appeals and when the government does.

    No appeals on the merits in this release

    How to cite this page

    Figures on this page belong to one monthly release and are replaced whole by the next. The release label and the data cutoff are part of the citation for that reason: without them the number cannot be checked later.

    Asylum Beacon. Judge Hallauer, Scott F. EOIR Case Data, U.S. DOJ FOIA Library, release 2026-09, data through 2026-09-30. https://asylumbeacon.com/en/judge/SFH

    Methodology in full

    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 give legal advice. The release lags by roughly a month, so check ACIS or Respondent Access for your current case status. The source has known gaps, including among relief applications: if something is missing here, that does not mean it is missing from your case.