Skip to content
Asylum BeaconU.S. immigration court data
← All nationalities

ALBANIA

Asylum decisions for applicants of this nationality across all U.S. immigration courts.

56%

Asylum grant rate

of 14,117 decisions · FY1984–FY2026

95% interval: 55% — 56%

granted:
7,843
denied:
6,274
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

  • ALBANIA56% (14,117)
  • 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

0%25%50%75%100%1987199620022008201420202026

U.S. fiscal year: October 1 – September 30.

FY2026 is incomplete: the release covers only 10 of its 12 months. Its point is drawn hollow and the segment leading to it is dashed.

Years with fewer than 10 decisions are not plotted (7): at that sample size the percentage is noise. They remain in the table.

Show as a table
Grant rate by fiscal year
Perioddecisionsgranted95% interval
FY2026partial8713%7% — 21%
FY202518072%65% — 78%
FY202424875%69% — 80%
FY202327782%77% — 86%
FY202227285%80% — 89%
FY20214173%58% — 84%
FY202012869%60% — 76%
FY201919071%64% — 77%
FY201824375%70% — 80%
FY201717277%70% — 82%
FY201614081%73% — 86%
FY201511575%66% — 82%
FY201412170%62% — 78%
FY201313473%65% — 80%
FY201215560%52% — 67%
FY201120070%63% — 76%
FY201025159%53% — 65%
FY200932463%58% — 68%
FY200849664%60% — 68%
FY200766663%59% — 67%
FY200688956%53% — 59%
FY20051,10255%52% — 58%
FY20041,34854%51% — 56%
FY20031,50248%45% — 50%
FY20021,32039%36% — 42%
FY20011,03749%46% — 53%
FY200079349%46% — 53%
FY199965250%47% — 54%
FY199848748%44% — 52%
FY199724652%46% — 59%
FY199613958%49% — 65%
FY19959739%30% — 49%
FY19941625%10% — 49%
FY19931145%21% — 72%
FY1992667%30% — 90%
FY199140%0% — 49%
FY199010%0% — 79%
FY198930%0% — 56%
FY1988633%10% — 70%
FY1987128%1% — 35%
FY198620%0% — 66%
FY198540%0% — 49%

Representation

"Represented" means a respondent's representative was on record no later than the decision date. The release contains no representative names. The gap between represented and unrepresented reflects both quality of counsel and which cases find counsel at all — it does not follow that counsel raises the odds by exactly this much.

  • Represented61% (11,481)
  • Unrepresented32% (2,636)

Custody

Custody and detention fields are not sourced from EOIR but from DHS — the release's own Readme says so. This breakdown shows the composition of the judge's docket, not the judge's treatment of detained people.

  • Never detained59% (11,045)
  • Released52% (2,206)
  • Detained22% (863)
  • C0% (1)

The queue

Applicants of this nationality with no decision yet.

1,532
cases waiting
31 mo
already waited, median
  • Half have waited between 14 mo and 87 mo.
  • 1,168 (76%) have a hearing scheduled later than the date this data was collected. The rest have no upcoming event in the release.

The queue counts proceedings with no decision in the release. The figure runs from the NTA date to the release cutoff — it is how long people have already waited, not how much longer they will. Shown separately: how many have a hearing scheduled after the cutoff. The rest have no upcoming event in the release and should not be read alongside live cases.

Where these cases are heard

Courts by number of decisions for this nationality. Ordered by volume, not by percentage.

Where these cases are heard
Courtdecisionsgranted95% interval
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT7,13671%70% — 72%
DETROIT — IMMIGRATION COURT1,58722%20% — 24%
CHICAGO — IMMIGRATION COURT66549%46% — 53%
NEWARK — IMMIGRATION COURT57346%42% — 50%
BOSTON — IMMIGRATION COURT57247%42% — 51%
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT46069%65% — 73%
MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT43937%33% — 42%
Orlando — IMMIGRATION COURT42738%34% — 43%
HARTFORD — IMMIGRATION COURT38638%33% — 43%
PHILADELPHIA — IMMIGRATION COURT31545%40% — 51%
NEW YORK — IMMIGRATION COURT24536%30% — 42%
ELIZABETH — IMMIGRATION COURT24135%29% — 41%
NAPANOCH — IMMIGRATION COURT15533%26% — 41%
DALLAS — IMMIGRATION COURT9146%36% — 56%
CLEVELAND — IMMIGRATION COURT6859%47% — 70%
PHOENIX — IMMIGRATION COURT6868%56% — 78%
MIAMI — IMMIGRATION COURT6221%13% — 33%
ANNANDALE — IMMIGRATION COURT5446%34% — 59%
BALTIMORE — IMMIGRATION COURT5362%49% — 74%
SAN DIEGO — IMMIGRATION COURT5024%14% — 37%
LOS ANGELES — WEST LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT4443%30% — 58%
BUFFALO — IMMIGRATION COURT4229%17% — 44%
KANSAS CITY — IMMIGRATION COURT3716%8% — 31%
MEMPHIS — IMMIGRATION COURT3070%52% — 83%
SAN FRANCISCO — IMMIGRATION COURT3073%56% — 86%

Judges with the most such cases

At least 50 decisions for this nationality. This is not a ranking: judges hear different mixes of cases even within one country.

Judges with the most such cases
Judgedecisionsgranted95% interval
Newberry, Robert D.52220%17% — 23%
Hacker, Elizabeth A.39017%13% — 21%
Chew, George T.34776%71% — 80%
Bain, Terry A.33795%92% — 97%
Morace, Philip L.31577%72% — 81%
Schoppert, Douglas B.30482%77% — 86%
Nelson, Barbara A.30151%45% — 56%
Laforest, Brigitte28983%79% — 87%
Rohan, Patricia A.27978%73% — 83%
Mcmanus, Margaret25490%85% — 93%
Lamb, Elizabeth A.25192%88% — 95%
Sichel, Helen24367%61% — 73%
Elstein, Annette S.23572%66% — 77%
Burr, Sarah M.22784%79% — 88%
Straus, Michael W.22437%31% — 43%
Bukszpan, Joanna M.21477%71% — 82%
Hom, Sandy20321%16% — 27%
Brennan, Noel A.18886%81% — 90%
Wyke, William Van18492%88% — 95%
Weisel, Robert D.18062%55% — 69%
Gordon-Uruakpa, Vivienne E.17588%82% — 92%
Videla, Gabriel C.17353%46% — 60%
Chase, Jeffrey S.15957%49% — 64%
Defonzo, Paul15758%50% — 65%
Zerbe, Craig M.14352%44% — 60%

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.