Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data

Judge Burr, Sarah M.

NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing
November 26, 2014
Next hearing
none scheduled
Last decision
December 20, 2012
Courts worked at: 4

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.

54%

Asylum grant rate

of 4,604 decisions · FY1985–FY2013

95% interval: 52%55%

granted:
2,478
denied:
2,126
other protection: withholding and the Convention Against Torture:
1

Withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture let a person stay, but grant no refugee status and no path to a green card. They are therefore excluded from the asylum grant rate and shown as a separate figure.

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1985–FY2013 — 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 judge54% (4,604)
  • The whole court — NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT57% (230,016)
  • 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%199419972001200520092013

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
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY20136087%76%93%
FY201212988%82%93%
FY20118081%71%88%
FY20108283%73%90%
FY200912661%52%69%
FY200810377%68%84%
FY200712681%73%87%
FY200632178%73%82%
FY200533475%71%80%
FY200430772%67%77%
FY200334874%69%78%
FY200225370%64%75%
FY200129962%57%68%
FY200030252%46%58%
FY199929352%46%58%
FY199831233%28%39%
FY199734723%19%28%
FY199630510%7%13%
FY199539113%10%16%
FY1994799%4%17%
FY199320%0%66%
FY199110%0%79%
FY199010%0%79%
FY198910%0%79%
FY198810%0%79%
FY198510%0%79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationalitydecisionsgranted95% interval
CHINA2,35852%50%54%
ALBANIA23985%80%89%
MAURITANIA15045%37%53%
Former Countries14478%71%84%
PAKISTAN13939%31%47%
BANGLADESH13236%29%45%
INDIA12820%14%28%
RUSSIA9586%78%92%
GUINEA8873%63%81%
INDONESIA7464%52%74%
EL SALVADOR703%1%10%
EGYPT6390%81%96%
HAITI5238%26%52%
NEPAL4990%78%96%
GAMBIA4337%24%52%

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.

16 mo

median

half of cases: 10—24 mo

based on 4,605 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided inCasesmedianhalf of cases, mo
FY20136024 mo2041
FY201212918 mo927
FY20118024 mo1468
FY20108226 mo1255
FY200912621 mo1347
FY200810425 mo1539
FY200712619 mo1326
FY200632115 mo1221
FY200533417 mo1128
FY200430717 mo1225

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 Decision810
Denied805
Summary Affirmance444
Remand317
Termination270
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)215
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD93
Granted81
Summarily Dismiss70
Other63
Withdrawal of Appeal60
Background Check Remand38
Coercive Population Control36
Sustain35
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA32
Temporary Protected Status29
Dismiss Soriano29
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)19
Dismiss as Untimely17
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief9
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)6
Terminate-DHS PD5
Continued5
Deferred Enforced Departure4
Grant with no Remand3
Rejection3
Granted Soriano3
American Baptist Church Settlement2
Other Soriano2
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal2
Administratively Closed-DHS PD1
Conditional Grant--CPC Asylum1
Denied Soriano1
Dismissed as Moot1
Administratively Closed1

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.