Toughest & Most Lenient Immigration Judges
Judges ranked by denial rate (min. 500 decisions). National average grant rate: 7.4%.
💡 "Judge Roulette": Asylum outcomes vary dramatically by judge. Some grant over 50% of cases while others deny over 99%. Same law, wildly different results. The judge assigned to your case can be the single biggest factor in whether you receive protection.
🔴 Top 50 Toughest Judges (Highest Denial Rate)
| # | Judge | Denial Rate | Grant Rate | Decisions | Removals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Iad Judge | 100% | 0% | 35,865 | 0 |
| 2 | Garten, Danielle H. | 100% | 0% | 4,024 | 0 |
| 3 | Visiting Judge 10 | 100% | 0% | 2,719 | 0 |
| 4 | Lucic, Nicholas B. | 100% | 0% | 619 | 0 |
| 5 | Mam | 100% | 0% | 587 | 1 |
| 6 | New Ij #6 | 99.9% | 0.1% | 4,195 | 2 |
| 7 | Garcia, Emmanuel | 99.9% | 0.1% | 3,780 | 1 |
| 8 | Miller, Jane Chace. | 99.9% | 0.1% | 2,097 | 0 |
| 9 | Visiting Judge 9 | 99.9% | 0.1% | 1,839 | 1 |
| 10 | Brown, Jefferson | 99.9% | 0.1% | 1,807 | 17 |
| 11 | Lampley-Fortson, Christa J. | 99.9% | 0.1% | 1,780 | 0 |
| 12 | Doolittle, John R., Ii | 99.9% | 0.1% | 765 | 0 |
| 13 | Jaroch, Brandon | 99.9% | 0.1% | 670 | 1 |
| 14 | Clerical Transfer Code | 99.8% | 0.2% | 72,678 | 315 |
| 15 | Crofts, James | 99.8% | 0.2% | 5,560 | 0 |
| 16 | Visiting Judge 4 | 99.8% | 0.2% | 1,513 | 36 |
| 17 | Koutras, Charles | 99.8% | 0.2% | 1,184 | 0 |
| 18 | Owen, Sirce E. | 99.8% | 0.2% | 1,154 | 0 |
| 19 | Coaxum, Ghunise L. | 99.7% | 0.3% | 8,475 | 9 |
| 20 | Comans, Jamee E. | 99.7% | 0.3% | 4,664 | 2 |
| 21 | Glaser-Allen, Colleen | 99.7% | 0.3% | 3,988 | 0 |
| 22 | Visiting Judge 7 | 99.7% | 0.3% | 651 | 0 |
| 23 | Larsen, Alexandra R. | 99.6% | 0.4% | 12,914 | 0 |
| 24 | Taylor, Philip P. | 99.6% | 0.4% | 12,856 | 24 |
| 25 | Jones, Delana M. | 99.6% | 0.4% | 9,630 | 0 |
| 26 | Neumann, Monica | 99.6% | 0.4% | 7,723 | 5 |
| 27 | Joyce, Jacquelyn J. | 99.6% | 0.4% | 5,684 | 0 |
| 28 | Sharp, Noelle | 99.6% | 0.4% | 5,157 | 0 |
| 29 | Pineda, Christopher | 99.6% | 0.4% | 3,941 | 22 |
| 30 | Diaz, Jaime | 99.6% | 0.4% | 1,123 | 0 |
| 31 | Thompson, Ryan | 99.6% | 0.4% | 550 | 0 |
| 32 | Oakdale Detail Judge 1 | 99.6% | 0.4% | 529 | 0 |
| 33 | Herbert, Nathan L. | 99.5% | 0.5% | 21,846 | 5 |
| 34 | Cosme, Angel M. | 99.5% | 0.5% | 12,794 | 7,626 |
| 35 | Niziolek, Alec J. | 99.5% | 0.5% | 9,304 | 2 |
| 36 | Ashworth, Sherron | 99.5% | 0.5% | 6,198 | 3 |
| 37 | Dillow, Eric | 99.5% | 0.5% | 4,841 | 1 |
| 38 | Segovia, Veronica Marie. | 99.5% | 0.5% | 4,273 | 0 |
| 39 | French, Kathleen | 99.5% | 0.5% | 3,714 | 0 |
| 40 | Ward, James | 99.5% | 0.5% | 1,893 | 1 |
| 41 | Foster, Neale | 99.4% | 0.6% | 16,844 | 2,609 |
| 42 | Castaneda, Julian | 99.4% | 0.6% | 16,449 | 162 |
| 43 | Martinez, Elizabeth | 99.4% | 0.6% | 15,195 | 4 |
| 44 | Brown, Kevin | 99.4% | 0.6% | 10,753 | 0 |
| 45 | Newburn, Irma J. | 99.4% | 0.6% | 9,698 | 0 |
| 46 | Bell, Jennifer R. | 99.4% | 0.6% | 9,313 | 3 |
| 47 | Cordero Gonzalez, Miguel A. | 99.4% | 0.6% | 9,093 | 1 |
| 48 | Wang, Lynn | 99.4% | 0.6% | 8,302 | 37 |
| 49 | Jenkins, Arkesia | 99.4% | 0.6% | 7,110 | 4 |
| 50 | Reese, Agnelis L. | 99.3% | 0.7% | 40,709 | 195 |
🟢 Top 50 Most Lenient Judges (Lowest Denial Rate)
| # | Judge | Denial Rate | Grant Rate | Decisions | Removals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Morace, Philip L. | 55.1% | 44.9% | 15,819 | 615 |
| 2 | Coleman, Sandra S. | 55.6% | 44.4% | 4,661 | 12 |
| 3 | Bain, Terry A. | 56.2% | 43.8% | 18,536 | 843 |
| 4 | Brennan, Noel A. | 57.8% | 42.2% | 17,038 | 130 |
| 5 | Chew, George T. | 58.4% | 41.6% | 15,376 | 637 |
| 6 | Griswold, Stephen S. | 60.9% | 39.1% | 3,673 | 11 |
| 7 | Lamb, Elizabeth A. | 61% | 39% | 14,992 | 768 |
| 8 | Mcmanus, Margaret | 62.1% | 37.9% | 18,601 | 885 |
| 9 | Gonzalez, Alberto E. | 63.1% | 36.9% | 5,815 | 609 |
| 10 | Laforest, Brigitte | 63.7% | 36.3% | 20,581 | 368 |
| 11 | Schoppert, Douglas B. | 64% | 36% | 18,671 | 120 |
| 12 | Gordon-Uruakpa, Vivienne E. | 65.5% | 34.5% | 17,083 | 61 |
| 13 | Proctor, George W. | 66.9% | 33.1% | 2,950 | 24 |
| 14 | Wyke, William Van | 68.1% | 31.9% | 13,631 | 341 |
| 15 | Deiss, Ila C. | 68.1% | 31.9% | 11,027 | 13 |
| 16 | Phillips, Beverley M. | 69.4% | 30.6% | 9,149 | 1,321 |
| 17 | Sichel, Helen | 69.5% | 30.5% | 17,028 | 212 |
| 18 | Levine, Shira M. | 70.6% | 29.4% | 4,677 | 7 |
| 19 | Webber, Polly A. | 70.9% | 29.1% | 12,944 | 389 |
| 20 | Randall, Anthony J. | 70.9% | 29.1% | 7,249 | 438 |
| 21 | Ramirez, Laura L. | 71.5% | 28.5% | 13,435 | 95 |
| 22 | Donnolo, Paula | 71.6% | 28.4% | 1,205 | 5 |
| 23 | Maggard, Print | 71.7% | 28.3% | 7,062 | 3 |
| 24 | Burr, Sarah M. | 72% | 28% | 11,045 | 888 |
| 25 | Kim, Samuel Y. | 72.1% | 27.9% | 728 | 1 |
| 26 | King, Carol A. | 72.4% | 27.6% | 11,674 | 289 |
| 27 | Marks, Dana Leigh | 73.3% | 26.7% | 23,995 | 2,293 |
| 28 | Teeter, Marilyn J. | 73.3% | 26.7% | 8,641 | 111 |
| 29 | Cohen, Raisa | 73.3% | 26.7% | 5,490 | 23 |
| 30 | Masterson, Jason R. | 73.5% | 26.5% | 778 | 1 |
| 31 | Gembacz, Gilbert T. | 73.6% | 26.4% | 8,960 | 627 |
| 32 | Phan-Quang, Tue | 73.7% | 26.3% | 10,193 | 749 |
| 33 | Bukszpan, Joanna M. | 74.2% | 25.8% | 14,828 | 868 |
| 34 | Costanzo, Lawrence Di | 74.2% | 25.8% | 13,429 | 2,236 |
| 35 | Geisse, Loreto | 74.5% | 25.5% | 13,845 | 19 |
| 36 | Hornbach, Bernard J. | 74.6% | 25.4% | 14,304 | 2,613 |
| 37 | Cassin, Olivia L. | 75% | 25% | 8,009 | 12 |
| 38 | O'Sullivan, Maureen | 75.1% | 24.9% | 15,773 | 59 |
| 39 | Kleinfeld, Seymour R. | 75.2% | 24.8% | 6,989 | 451 |
| 40 | Paulino, Robin K. | 75.2% | 24.8% | 3,095 | 6 |
| 41 | Roe, Adrian N. | 75.8% | 24.2% | 599 | 0 |
| 42 | Navarro, Maria E. | 75.9% | 24.1% | 5,566 | 3 |
| 43 | Cheng, Mary | 76.2% | 23.8% | 6,289 | 20 |
| 44 | Yeargin, Robert | 76.4% | 23.6% | 5,914 | 19 |
| 45 | Rohan, Patricia A. | 76.5% | 23.5% | 26,008 | 1,898 |
| 46 | King Jr., H. Lloyd | 76.5% | 23.5% | 3,416 | 33 |
| 47 | Bower, Glen L. | 76.5% | 23.5% | 2,511 | 19 |
| 48 | Stockton, Bette Kane | 76.8% | 23.2% | 16,848 | 2,390 |
| 49 | George, Amber D | 76.8% | 23.2% | 5,220 | 2 |
| 50 | Russelburg, Joseph | 76.8% | 23.2% | 570 | 7 |