Judge Jefferies, Scott M.

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: November 27, 2012
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: September 25, 2012

Courts worked at: 9

Worked here before

FLORENCE — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—2012 · 83,513 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT2006—2010 · 16 hearings
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2007 · 36 hearings
PHOENIX — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—2006 · 3,464 hearings
MEMPHIS — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2000 · 47 hearings
SACRAMENTO — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—1998 · 114 hearings
LAS VEGAS — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—1998 · 110 hearings
SAN DIEGO — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—1995 · 362 hearings
IMPERIAL — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—1995 · 14 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.

18%

Asylum grant rate

of 544 decisions · FY1995–FY2012

95% interval: 15% — 21%

granted:: 96
denied:: 448

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1995–FY2012 — 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% (544)
The whole court — FLORENCE — IMMIGRATION COURT17% (3,498)
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 (3): 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
FY2012	32	6%	2% — 20%
FY2011	46	15%	8% — 28%
FY2010	31	16%	7% — 33%
FY2009	41	17%	9% — 31%
FY2008	35	9%	3% — 22%
FY2007	9	22%	6% — 55%
FY2006	59	10%	5% — 20%
FY2005	46	13%	6% — 26%
FY2004	13	38%	18% — 64%
FY2003	8	38%	14% — 69%
FY2002	13	46%	23% — 71%
FY2001	22	27%	13% — 48%
FY2000	36	17%	8% — 32%
FY1999	34	29%	17% — 46%
FY1998	26	12%	4% — 29%
FY1997	27	22%	11% — 41%
FY1996	63	21%	12% — 32%
FY1995	3	0%	0% — 56%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
GUATEMALA	80	8%	3% — 15%
EL SALVADOR	79	3%	1% — 9%
MEXICO	67	1%	0% — 8%
HONDURAS	37	3%	0% — 14%
CHINA	24	21%	9% — 40%
NICARAGUA	18	22%	9% — 45%
CUBA	18	28%	12% — 51%
VIETNAM	14	14%	4% — 40%
HAITI	13	31%	13% — 58%
IRAN	11	73%	43% — 90%
IRAQ	9	56%	27% — 81%
ETHIOPIA	9	56%	27% — 81%
INDIA	8	13%	2% — 47%
PHILIPPINES	8	25%	7% — 59%
UKRAINE	7	29%	8% — 64%

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.

4 mo

median

half of cases: 3—8 mo

based on 544 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2012	32	5 mo	4—8
FY2011	46	6 mo	4—8
FY2010	31	8 mo	7—12
FY2009	41	6 mo	4—14
FY2008	35	5 mo	4—7
FY2006	59	4 mo	2—6
FY2005	46	3 mo	2—4
FY2000	36	4 mo	3—9
FY1999	34	3 mo	2—6
FY1996	63	6 mo	3—10

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	613
Remand	231
Withdrawal of Appeal	209
Summary Affirmance	118
Sustain	98
Denied	91
Moot Bond	77
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	54
Other	44
Dismiss Soriano	33
Termination	31
Background Check Remand	24
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	18
Summarily Dismiss	12
Dismiss as Untimely	12
Granted	8
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	5
MB	4
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	4
Temporary Protected Status	3
Rejection	3
Grant with no Remand	3
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	2
Terminate-DHS PD	2
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Coercive Population Control	2
Other Soriano	2
Denied Soriano	1
Summary Dismissal (G) untimely or waived appeal	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.