Judge Wyke, William Van

Not hearing cases: nothing for over two years

Last hearing: April 3, 2020
Next hearing: none scheduled
Last decision: October 6, 2021

Courts worked at: 9

Worked here before

NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT1975—2020 · 47,471 hearings
PEARSALL — IMMIGRATION COURT2015—2015 · 130 hearings
NEWARK — IMMIGRATION COURT2014—2014 · 54 hearings
BOSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT2012—2012 · 15 hearings
PHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2006 · 718 hearings
NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT2005—2006 · 78 hearings
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1998—2004 · 30 hearings
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT1995—2003 · 13,608 hearings
BALTIMORE — IMMIGRATION COURT1997—1998 · 70 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.

78%

Asylum grant rate

of 4,130 decisions · FY1987–FY2015

95% interval: 77% — 80%

granted:: 3,234
denied:: 896

The period has closed

This judge no longer hears cases, so the figure describes FY1987–FY2015 — 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 judge78% (4,130)
The whole court — NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT57% (230,016)
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 (3): 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
FY2015	141	73%	65% — 80%
FY2014	215	86%	81% — 90%
FY2013	163	80%	74% — 86%
FY2012	178	86%	80% — 90%
FY2011	275	82%	77% — 86%
FY2010	234	82%	77% — 87%
FY2009	275	86%	81% — 89%
FY2008	258	93%	89% — 95%
FY2007	282	91%	87% — 94%
FY2006	370	91%	88% — 94%
FY2005	291	82%	78% — 86%
FY2004	286	84%	80% — 88%
FY2003	226	83%	77% — 87%
FY2002	159	77%	70% — 83%
FY2001	79	73%	63% — 82%
FY2000	45	60%	45% — 73%
FY1999	28	36%	21% — 54%
FY1998	48	48%	34% — 62%
FY1997	197	69%	62% — 75%
FY1996	228	44%	38% — 50%
FY1995	147	22%	16% — 29%
FY1994	2	0%	0% — 66%
FY1993	2	0%	0% — 66%
FY1987	1	0%	0% — 79%

By applicant nationality

Grant rate by nationality, largest volumes first
Nationality	decisions	granted	95% interval
CHINA	2,069	76%	74% — 78%
ALBANIA	217	92%	88% — 95%
INDONESIA	107	89%	81% — 93%
GUINEA	101	78%	69% — 85%
Former Countries	93	92%	85% — 96%
RUSSIA	88	92%	84% — 96%
MAURITANIA	82	82%	72% — 89%
SRI LANKA	81	94%	86% — 97%
INDIA	80	59%	48% — 69%
PAKISTAN	79	67%	56% — 76%
EGYPT	64	95%	87% — 98%
BANGLADESH	61	72%	60% — 82%
NIGERIA	59	51%	38% — 63%
NEPAL	55	87%	76% — 94%
IVORY COAST (COTE D'IVOIRE)	47	81%	67% — 90%

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.

26 mo

median

half of cases: 12—44 mo

based on 4,130 cases

NTA-to-decision duration by fiscal year
Decided in	Cases	median	half of cases, mo
FY2015	141	61 mo	51—69
FY2014	215	55 mo	45—66
FY2013	163	43 mo	38—66
FY2012	178	39 mo	31—57
FY2011	275	31 mo	27—45
FY2010	234	29 mo	24—41
FY2009	275	29 mo	21—51
FY2008	258	26 mo	16—37
FY2007	282	25 mo	13—33
FY2006	370	24 mo	15—39

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	589
Remand	343
Denied	300
Sustain	230
Termination	130
Withdrawal of Appeal	121
Other	80
Summary Affirmance	65
Background Check Remand	47
Dismissed (Grant V/D 30 days)	33
Lacks Jurisdiction - BIA	29
Moot Bond	26
Granted	23
Dismissed (Voluntary Departure Granted)	16
Coercive Population Control	14
Summarily Dismiss	12
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE/VD	10
Dismiss as Untimely	5
MB	4
Summary Dismissal (a) inad reason on appeal	4
Grant with no Remand	3
Dismissed as Moot	3
Rejection	3
Dismiss Soriano	2
Conditional Grant--CPC Asylum	2
Temporary Protected Status	1
Deferred Enforced Departure	1
SUMMARY DISMISSAL - BOTH (a) & (e)	1
Summary Dismissal (e) no brief	1
Denied Soriano	1
Terminate-DHS PD	1
Other 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.