Judge Griswold, Stephen S.
San Francisco Immigration Court
EOIR data through August 31, 2026 · built September 11, 2026 · What these dates mean
Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years
- Last hearing
- November 29, 2019
- Next hearing
- none scheduled
- Last decision
- March 30, 2018
Courts worked at: 6
Worked here before
- San Francisco Immigration Court1985—2019 · 16,665 hearing records
- Pearsall Immigration Court2014—2015 · 167 hearing records
- Tacoma Immigration Court2011—2012 · 15 hearing records
- Eloy Immigration Court2012—2012 · 10 hearing records
- El Paso Immigration Court2012—2012 · 20 hearing records
- West Los Angeles Immigration Court2001—2005 · 13 hearing records
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, 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.
59%
Asylum grant rate
of 957 decisions · FY1987–FY2018
95% interval: 55% — 62%
- granted:
- 561
- denied:
- 396
The period has closed
This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1987–FY2018 — 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. 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 judge59% (957)
- The whole court — San Francisco Immigration Court56% (89,431)
- All U.S. courts33% (1,369,763)
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 (4): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.
Show as a table
| Period | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2018 | 8 | 100% | 68% — 100% |
| FY2017 | 5 | 40% | 12% — 77% |
| FY2016 | 47 | 98% | 89% — 100% |
| FY2015 | 133 | 81% | 74% — 87% |
| FY2014 | 121 | 79% | 70% — 85% |
| FY2013 | 117 | 58% | 49% — 67% |
| FY2012 | 100 | 64% | 54% — 73% |
| FY2011 | 113 | 38% | 30% — 47% |
| FY2010 | 39 | 41% | 27% — 57% |
| FY2009 | 22 | 59% | 39% — 77% |
| FY2008 | 19 | 37% | 19% — 59% |
| FY2007 | 23 | 61% | 41% — 78% |
| FY2006 | 141 | 35% | 27% — 43% |
| FY2005 | 65 | 43% | 32% — 55% |
| FY1996 | 2 | 0% | 0% — 66% |
| FY1987 | 2 | 0% | 0% — 66% |
By applicant nationality
| Nationality | decisions | granted | 95% interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| India | 189 | 40% | 33% — 47% |
| China | 107 | 50% | 41% — 60% |
| El Salvador | 107 | 48% | 38% — 57% |
| Guatemala | 105 | 70% | 61% — 78% |
| Mexico | 65 | 75% | 64% — 84% |
| Nepal | 44 | 82% | 68% — 90% |
| Eritrea | 43 | 93% | 81% — 98% |
| Mongolia | 35 | 51% | 36% — 67% |
| Honduras | 27 | 89% | 72% — 96% |
| Fiji | 21 | 33% | 17% — 55% |
| Iran | 16 | 75% | 51% — 90% |
| Ethiopia | 16 | 88% | 64% — 97% |
| Burma (Myanmar) | 12 | 100% | 76% — 100% |
| Russia | 12 | 33% | 14% — 61% |
| Former Countries | 11 | 64% | 35% — 85% |
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 August 31, 2026; these are past and current cases, not a forecast for yours.
How long decided cases took
from the NTA to the decision
17 mohalf of cases: 10—34 modetailshidehalf of cases: 10—34 mo
How long decided cases took
from the NTA to the decision
- Cases decided
- 957
- Half of cases
- 10—34 mo
- The whole court
- 23 mo
| Decided in | cases | the case ran, median | half of cases, mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2016 | 47 | 20 mo | 17—27 |
| FY2015 | 133 | 11 mo | 9—21 |
| FY2014 | 121 | 27 mo | 16—45 |
| FY2013 | 117 | 17 mo | 9—30 |
| FY2012 | 100 | 13 mo | 9—19 |
| FY2011 | 113 | 12 mo | 9—31 |
| FY2010 | 39 | 52 mo | 29—64 |
| FY2006 | 141 | 13 mo | 8—30 |
| FY2005 | 65 | 17 mo | 8—34 |
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
too few to tellproceedings in the queue: 0nationwide 34 modetailshideproceedings in the queue: 0
How long undecided cases have already waited
from the NTA to the data cutoff
No undecided proceedings in this release.
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 tellcases with a date set: 0nationwide 7 modetailshidecases with a date set: 0
When the nearest hearing is set
from the data cutoff to the nearest hearing
No hearings scheduled after this date in the release.
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
too few to tellfewer than 50 hearingsnationwide 11 modetailshidefewer than 50 hearings
From a master calendar hearing to the individual hearing
from a master calendar hearing to the one set after it
The release has no master calendar hearings over the last year.
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.
12% of proceedings ended in absentia — 414 of 3,542.
- This judge12% (3,542)
- The whole court13% (369,755)
- All U.S. courts19% (11,588,297)
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.
No hearings with an adjournment reason in this release
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.
| Filed by | Appeals | Decision stood | Sent back | Overturned | Closed without merits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | 513 | 82% | 14% | 0% | 4% |
| nationally | 712,355 | 74% | 13% | 1% | 11% |
| Government (DHS) | 11 | 0% | 82% | 0% | 18% |
| nationally | 56,049 | 17% | 56% | 9% | 17% |
There are also appeals of other kinds, not counted in this table: MTR BIA — 193, Circuit Court Remand — 99, Appeal of IJ MTR — 15, Bond Appeal — 5, Interlocutory Appeal — 5.
Only appeals on the merits (Case Appeal) are counted: motions to the Board itself and bond appeals are different events. The same outcome means opposite things depending on the filer, which is why the bucket is called "the judge's decision stood", not "X won".
How this is counted
A dismissed appeal means the removal order stood when the respondent appealed, and that the asylum grant stood when the government did; the two do not go into one percentage. Recent years are undercounted: an appeal takes months or years to resolve, so outcomes are counted by the date of the Board's decision while the appealed share is counted by the date of the judge's decision.
The second round after a remand
The Board sent the case back to this judge or a colleague — and this is how the second hearing ended. The return is no formality: on the first round every one of these cases had been decided, and the decision was set aside.
Completed second rounds over five years: 3. Unfinished ones are not counted here.
Fewer than 30 completed second rounds — 3 in all. There is nothing to state a share on: at that count the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges. Nationally 17.5% of second rounds end in protection.
Nationally the same judge runs the second round in 45% of cases. Outcomes must not be compared across this: cases that changed judges took longer, so shifts in practice over that time bore on them more heavily.
How often a second round ends in protection
- The whole court13% (4,014)
- All U.S. courts18% (22,363)
How the second rounds ended
| Outcome | Cases | This judge | Nationally |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protection granted | 1 | 33.3% | 17.5% |
| Removal, denial | 2 | 66.7% | 29.6% |
By who filed the appeal
| Filed by | Cases | Protection granted | Proceeding terminated | Nationally |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | 2 | — | — | 19.7% |
| Government (DHS) | 1 | — | — | 13.7% |
Under each share — the 95% interval.
The judge here is the one whose decision was appealed, not necessarily the one who ran the second round. The denominator is completed second rounds, not all remanded cases. And this is not a property of the judge alone: the Board remands cases of a particular kind, and judges see different mixes of them.
How this is counted
Counting is by the date the second round ended; unfinished rounds are excluded — among cases remanded over the past five years, about a third are still running. A share is stated from thirty completed rounds upwards: on fewer the interval is wider than the whole spread between judges. There is no "now and before" pair here as in neighbouring blocks: second rounds are rare and slow, about three per judge in a year. The history is in the yearly series — which also shows why one figure for five years is not enough: what moved the headline share was the share of terminations, not judges growing stricter.
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 Griswold, Stephen S. EOIR Case Data, U.S. DOJ FOIA Library, release 2026-08, data through 2026-08-31. https://asylumbeacon.com/en/judge/SSG
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.