Judge Strasser, William

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: July 26, 2006
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: March 1, 2006

Courts worked at: 6

Worked here before

NEWARK — IMMIGRATION COURT1969—2006 · 51,948 hearings
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1985—2005 · 379 hearings
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT1994—2003 · 361 hearings
NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT1986—1995 · 891 hearings
BOSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—1991 · 38 hearings
LOS FRESNOS — IMMIGRATION COURT1989—1989 · 379 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.

34%

Asylum grant rate

of 2,332 decisions · FY1969–FY2005

95% interval: 32% — 36%

granted:: 791
denied:: 1,541

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1969–FY2005 — 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 judge34% (2,332)
The whole court — NEWARK — IMMIGRATION COURT28% (34,751)
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
FY2005	59	59%	47% — 71%
FY2004	147	66%	58% — 73%
FY2003	108	69%	60% — 77%
FY2002	55	80%	68% — 88%
FY2001	43	88%	76% — 95%
FY2000	74	43%	33% — 55%
FY1999	58	55%	42% — 67%
FY1998	98	56%	46% — 66%
FY1997	145	34%	27% — 42%
FY1996	61	30%	20% — 42%
FY1995	85	20%	13% — 30%
FY1994	95	19%	12% — 28%
FY1993	111	32%	24% — 42%
FY1992	117	37%	29% — 46%
FY1991	178	26%	20% — 33%
FY1990	217	19%	14% — 25%
FY1989	215	23%	18% — 29%
FY1988	249	16%	12% — 21%
FY1987	125	18%	12% — 25%
FY1986	52	6%	2% — 16%
FY1985	33	0%	0% — 10%
FY1984	6	0%	0% — 39%
FY1983	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
EL SALVADOR	421	5%	4% — 8%
CHINA	264	52%	46% — 58%
NICARAGUA	188	20%	15% — 27%
CUBA	145	32%	25% — 40%
HAITI	142	21%	15% — 29%
GUATEMALA	91	10%	5% — 18%
INDIA	87	24%	16% — 34%
Former Countries	82	35%	26% — 46%
AFGHANISTAN	61	82%	71% — 90%
COLOMBIA	56	43%	31% — 56%
LIBERIA	54	81%	69% — 90%
EGYPT	42	60%	44% — 73%
POLAND	42	19%	10% — 33%
PAKISTAN	35	49%	33% — 64%
RUSSIA	35	71%	55% — 84%

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: 11—26 mo

based on 2,332 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2005	59	36 mo	26—42
FY2004	147	29 mo	20—41
FY2003	108	24 mo	14—62
FY2002	55	16 mo	9—31
FY2001	43	31 mo	18—42
FY2000	74	28 mo	18—38
FY1999	58	20 mo	12—26
FY1998	98	19 mo	15—24
FY1997	145	13 mo	10—16
FY1996	61	13 mo	9—18

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	555
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	445
Denied	258
Temporary Protected Status	256
Remand	226
Granted	142
Withdrawal of Appeal	132
Other	70
Summary Affirmance	66
Sustain	53
Dismiss Soriano	36
Termination	26
Summarily Dismiss	19
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	19
American Baptist Church Settlement	19
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	18
Dismiss as Untimely	17
Background Check Remand	12
Continued	10
Coercive Population Control	7
Administrative Return	6
Moot Bond	6
Grant with no Remand	6
Deferred Enforced Departure	6
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	5
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	4
Conditional Grant--CPC Asylum	2
Rejection	2
SPECIAL NACARA CONTINUATION	2
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	2
Granted Soriano	1
Terminate-DHS PD	1
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	1
Denied Soriano	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.