Asylum Cases

Of 9,665,247 total immigration cases, asylum decisions account for 1,577,067 outcomes — with a 58.3% grant rate overall. This means roughly 919,430 out of every 1,577,067 asylum seekers with a final decision were granted protection.

918,787
Asylum Granted (All Time)
658,280
Asylum Denied (All Time)
58.3%
Overall Grant Rate
1,907,436
Pending Cases

Asylum Grants vs Denials

Asylum Grants & Denials by Year

How Asylum Works in Immigration Court

Asylum is a form of protection that allows individuals who meet the definition of a "refugee" to remain in the United States. To qualify, an applicant must demonstrate that they have suffered persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Most asylum cases in immigration court are "defensive" asylum claims — filed by individuals who are already in removal proceedings. The immigration judge hears the case and decides whether to grant asylum, another form of relief, or order deportation.

All Case Outcomes

OutcomeCount
Relief Granted (Asylum/Other)896,454
Transfer to Another Court874,204
Voluntary Departure814,501
729,040
Dismissed by Judge647,910
Deportation Order628,798
Administrative Closure194,743
Exclusion Order153,158
Credible Fear Vacated47,788
Other Administrative Completion41,792
Application Denied29,457
Case Withdrawn10,588
Application Granted9,719
Withholding of Removal (INA)6,781
CAT Protection Granted3,599
CAT Deferral Granted1,722
Prior Order Rescinded1,074
Appealed to BIA748

Key Issues in Asylum Adjudication

Why This Data Matters

Asylum is a legal right enshrined in both U.S. law and international treaties. It exists to protect people fleeing persecution — those who face imprisonment, torture, or death because of who they are or what they believe. Yet the data reveals a troubling reality: whether an asylum seeker receives protection depends less on the merits of their case than on which court hears it and which judge is assigned. Some judges grant asylum in over 90% of cases; others deny it over 90% of the time. This isn't justice — it's a lottery.

The geographic and judicial variation in asylum outcomes raises fundamental due process concerns. A Salvadoran fleeing gang violence has dramatically different odds depending on whether their case lands in New York or Houston. Legal representation compounds this disparity: asylum seekers with attorneys are far more likely to win their cases, but the majority go unrepresented — particularly those in detention, where access to lawyers is severely limited.

These numbers also sit at the center of the broader border policy debate. Critics argue that low grant rates prove most claims are not genuine. Advocates counter that the system is stacked against applicants who lack counsel, face language barriers, and must navigate complex legal standards without help. The data doesn't resolve this debate, but it does make clear that the current system produces wildly inconsistent outcomes — and that inconsistency should concern everyone regardless of where they stand politically.

Source: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Data current through February 2026. Learn more →