Judge Nixon, William L.

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: July 31, 2014
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: March 4, 2014

Courts worked at: 2

Worked here before

WEST VALLEY — IMMIGRATION COURT2000—2014 · 28,919 hearings
DENVER — IMMIGRATION COURT2002—2006 · 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.

40%

Asylum grant rate

of 302 decisions · FY2005–FY2014

95% interval: 35% — 46%

granted:: 121
denied:: 181

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY2005–FY2014 — 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 judge40% (302)
The whole court — WEST VALLEY — IMMIGRATION COURT47% (8,553)
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.

Show as a table

Grant rate by fiscal year
Period	decisions	granted	95% interval
FY2013	10	40%	17% — 69%
FY2012	23	0%	0% — 14%
FY2011	24	25%	12% — 45%
FY2010	33	30%	17% — 47%
FY2009	31	32%	19% — 50%
FY2008	41	46%	32% — 61%
FY2007	59	56%	43% — 68%
FY2006	68	41%	30% — 53%
FY2005	13	85%	58% — 96%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
COLOMBIA	48	54%	40% — 67%
EL SALVADOR	26	0%	0% — 13%
PERU	26	19%	9% — 38%
GUATEMALA	21	0%	0% — 15%
VENEZUELA	21	67%	45% — 83%
CHINA	15	47%	25% — 70%
MEXICO	13	0%	0% — 23%
TOGO	9	78%	45% — 94%
EQUATORIAL GUINEA	9	100%	70% — 100%
IRAN	6	33%	10% — 70%
PAKISTAN	6	100%	61% — 100%
SUDAN	5	40%	12% — 77%
VIETNAM	5	60%	23% — 88%
INDONESIA	5	40%	12% — 77%
EGYPT	5	80%	38% — 96%

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.

27 mo

median

half of cases: 16—44 mo

based on 302 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2010	33	27 mo	9—62
FY2009	31	29 mo	22—46
FY2008	41	46 mo	26—48
FY2007	59	32 mo	20—44
FY2006	68	27 mo	16—37

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	237
Remand	155
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	102
Denied	58
Withdrawal of Appeal	34
Background Check Remand	34
Summary Affirmance	20
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	17
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	15
Termination	12
Other	9
Summarily Dismiss	6
Grant with no Remand	5
Sustain	5
Moot Bond	3
Administratively Closed-DHS PD	3
Terminate-DHS PD	2
Administratively Closed	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.