Judge Abrams, Steven R.

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: February 25, 2013
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: December 19, 2023

Courts worked at: 11

Worked here before

NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1964—2013 · 27,618 hearings
NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2011 · 10,836 hearings
Orlando — IMMIGRATION COURT2003—2007 · 147 hearings
LOS FRESNOS — IMMIGRATION COURT2007—2007 · 44 hearings
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2006 · 34 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT2001—2005 · 111 hearings
HARLINGEN — IMMIGRATION COURT2004—2005 · 687 hearings
BOSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT2001—2004 · 52 hearings
ATLANTA — IMMIGRATION COURT2002—2004 · 104 hearings
NEWARK — IMMIGRATION COURT2004—2004 · 10 hearings
BUFFALO — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—1998 · 10 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.

41%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,579 decisions · FY1991–FY2013

95% interval: 39% — 43%

granted:: 1,062
denied:: 1,517

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1991–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 judge41% (2,579)
The whole court — NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT36% (2,618)
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 (2): 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
FY2013	4	0%	0% — 49%
FY2012	43	33%	20% — 47%
FY2011	58	31%	21% — 44%
FY2010	58	33%	22% — 46%
FY2009	168	43%	36% — 51%
FY2008	243	40%	34% — 47%
FY2007	241	42%	36% — 49%
FY2006	275	45%	39% — 51%
FY2005	198	33%	27% — 40%
FY2004	116	36%	28% — 45%
FY2003	146	23%	17% — 31%
FY2002	227	31%	25% — 37%
FY2001	223	45%	38% — 51%
FY2000	292	59%	53% — 64%
FY1999	189	54%	47% — 61%
FY1998	97	29%	21% — 39%
FY1996	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
CHINA	734	37%	34% — 41%
SRI LANKA	227	83%	78% — 88%
ALBANIA	148	31%	24% — 39%
NIGERIA	139	19%	13% — 26%
GUINEA	100	34%	25% — 44%
Former Countries	65	43%	32% — 55%
SIERRA LEONE	62	52%	39% — 64%
COLOMBIA	57	30%	20% — 43%
IVORY COAST (COTE D'IVOIRE)	55	38%	27% — 51%
BANGLADESH	49	16%	9% — 29%
GHANA	42	7%	2% — 19%
EGYPT	41	59%	43% — 72%
Former Countries	41	78%	63% — 88%
MAURITANIA	36	28%	16% — 44%
CONGO	36	64%	48% — 78%

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—20 mo

based on 2,579 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2012	43	55 mo	17—76
FY2011	58	51 mo	16—72
FY2010	58	24 mo	11—64
FY2009	168	20 mo	13—49
FY2008	243	21 mo	13—50
FY2007	241	19 mo	11—31
FY2006	275	19 mo	12—32
FY2005	198	11 mo	6—22
FY2004	116	4 mo	3—6
FY2003	146	4 mo	3—5

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	765
Remand	339
Denied	296
Summary Affirmance	112
Termination	82
Withdrawal of Appeal	59
Background Check Remand	49
Sustain	48
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	33
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	30
Other	30
Summarily Dismiss	26
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	15
Granted	13
Coercive Population Control	10
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	9
Moot Bond	8
Terminate-DHS PD	8
Temporary Protected Status	6
Dismiss as Untimely	4
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	4
Dismiss Soriano	3
Grant with no Remand	3
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2
Continued	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.