Judge O'Leary, Thomas Michael

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: October 14, 2021
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: July 25, 2025

Courts worked at: 12

Worked here before

TUCSON — IMMIGRATION COURT1991—2021 · 33,588 hearings
ELOY — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—2020 · 41,202 hearings
FLORENCE — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—2019 · 1,053 hearings
EL PASO — IMMIGRATION COURT2017—2017 · 11 hearings
IMPERIAL — IMMIGRATION COURT1986—2015 · 6,296 hearings
PHOENIX — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—2013 · 132 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT2009—2009 · 11 hearings
SACRAMENTO — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2001 · 688 hearings
LAS VEGAS — IMMIGRATION COURT1996—1999 · 65 hearings
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—1998 · 60 hearings
BUFFALO — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—1997 · 64 hearings
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT1996—1997 · 28 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.

22%

Asylum grant rate

of 877 decisions · FY1989–FY2022

95% interval: 19% — 25%

granted:: 194
denied:: 683

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1989–FY2022 — 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 judge22% (877)
The whole court — ELOY — IMMIGRATION COURT18% (5,926)
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 (4): 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
FY2022	1	0%	0% — 79%
FY2021	5	0%	0% — 43%
FY2020	66	23%	14% — 34%
FY2019	103	19%	13% — 28%
FY2018	80	18%	11% — 27%
FY2017	70	24%	16% — 35%
FY2016	29	31%	17% — 49%
FY2015	43	40%	26% — 54%
FY2014	30	67%	49% — 81%
FY2013	46	50%	36% — 64%
FY2012	8	50%	22% — 78%
FY2011	13	38%	18% — 64%
FY2010	18	72%	49% — 88%
FY2009	17	41%	22% — 64%
FY2008	21	5%	1% — 23%
FY2007	36	14%	6% — 29%
FY2006	21	10%	3% — 29%
FY2005	18	0%	0% — 18%
FY2004	23	0%	0% — 14%
FY2003	17	0%	0% — 18%
FY2002	19	5%	1% — 25%
FY2001	25	0%	0% — 13%
FY2000	34	15%	6% — 30%
FY1999	55	4%	1% — 12%
FY1998	60	17%	9% — 28%
FY1997	18	22%	9% — 45%
FY1989	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
MEXICO	252	6%	4% — 10%
CHINA	121	65%	56% — 73%
GUATEMALA	71	8%	4% — 17%
EL SALVADOR	67	3%	1% — 10%
HONDURAS	53	17%	9% — 29%
VIETNAM	19	5%	1% — 25%
RWANDA	18	50%	29% — 71%
BURUNDI	17	82%	59% — 94%
CUBA	16	31%	14% — 56%
NICARAGUA	15	13%	4% — 38%
IRAN	15	33%	15% — 58%
COLOMBIA	13	8%	1% — 33%
LAOS	12	0%	0% — 24%
CAMEROON	10	80%	49% — 94%
IRAQ	9	11%	2% — 44%

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.

17 mo

median

half of cases: 6—29 mo

based on 877 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2020	66	11 mo	5—18
FY2019	103	19 mo	14—38
FY2018	80	18 mo	14—31
FY2017	70	25 mo	20—40
FY2015	43	37 mo	24—52
FY2014	30	29 mo	24—46
FY2013	46	38 mo	22—46
FY2007	36	6 mo	5—9
FY2000	34	7 mo	4—13
FY1999	55	9 mo	4—19

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	849
Remand	424
Summary Affirmance	247
Denied	164
Withdrawal of Appeal	158
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	140
Sustain	85
Termination	72
Moot Bond	69
Other	67
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	52
Summarily Dismiss	34
Background Check Remand	33
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	28
Granted	23
Grant with no Remand	20
Terminate-DHS PD	17
Dismiss as Untimely	16
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	14
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	14
Temporary Protected Status	12
Administratively Closed	10
MB	9
Dismiss Soriano	7
ROP Returned to Court to correct deficiency	7
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	5
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	4
Rejection	3
Continued	2
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	2

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.