U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

FY 2015
Statistics Yearbook
Prepared by the Office of Planning, Analysis, & Statistics
April 2016

Contact Information
Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1902
Falls Church, VA 22041
(703) 305-0289
(703) 605-0365 (fax)

DISCLAIMER
The Statistics Yearbook has been prepared as a public service by the Executive Office for Immigration Review and is strictly
informational in nature. In no way should any information in the Yearbook, in whole or in part, be regarded as legal advice or
authority, or be understood in any way to enlarge upon, or otherwise modify or interpret, any existing legal authority, including, but
not limited to, the Immigration and Nationality Act and Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

 FY 2015 STATISTICS YEARBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tab
Immigration Courts:
Total Matters Received and Completed
Cases Received and Completed by Type
Case Completions by Disposition
Initial Case Completions by Country of Nationality
Initial Case Completions by Language
Initial Case Completions by Representation Status
Initial Case Completions for Detained Cases
Institutional Hearing Program Cases Received and Completed
Initial Case Completions with Applications for Relief
Asylum Cases Received and Completed
Asylum Cases Completed by Disposition
Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality
Convention Against Torture
Applications for Relief other than Asylum
Voluntary Departure
In Absentia Orders

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P

Board of Immigration Appeals:
Total Cases Received and Completed
Cases Received and Completed by Type
Appeals from Immigration Judge Decisions Completed by Country of Nationality
Appeals from Immigration Judge Decisions Completed by Representation Status
Case Appeals from Immigration Judge Decisions Completed for Detained Cases

Q
R
S
T
U

Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals:
Immigration Judge Decisions (Initial Case) Appealed
Pending Caseload

V
W

Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer:
Total Cases Received and Completed

X

Glossary of Terms

i

 FY 2015 STATISTICS YEARBOOK
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Page
List of Figures:
Figure 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received and Completed
Figure 2 - Immigration Court Matters Received by Type
Figure 3 - Immigration Court Matters Completed by Type
Figure 4 - Immigration Judge Initial Case Completions by Completion Type
Figure 4A - Immigration Judge Subsequent Case Completions by Completion Type
Figure 5 - Immigration Judge Decisions by Disposition - Initial Case Completions
Figure 5A - Immigration Judge Decisions by Disposition - Subsequent Case Completions
Figure 6 - Other Completions by Disposition - Initial Case Completions
Figure 6A - Other Completions by Disposition - Subsequent Case Completions
Figure 7 - Changes of Venue and Transfers
Figure 8 - FY 2015 Initial Case Completions by Country of Nationality
Figure 9 - FY 2015 Initial Case Completions by Language
Figure 10 - Initial Case Completions: Percentage of Represented Cases
Figure 11 - Immigration Court Initial Case Completions: Detained and Total
Figure 12 - IHP Cases Received and Completed
Figure 13 - Immigration Court Initial Case Completions Percent with Applications
Figure 14 - Immigration Court Asylum Receipts: Affirmative and Defensive
Figure 15 - Asylum Cases: Receipts and Completions
Figure 16 - Immigration Court: Asylum Grant Rate
Figure 17 - Immigration Court: Affirmative Grant Rate
Figure 18 - Immigration Court: Defensive Grant Rate
Figure 19 - Asylum Completions by Disposition
Figure 20 - Immigration Court: Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
Figure 21 - Immigration Court: Asylum or Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
Figure 22 - FY 2015 Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality
Figure 23 - In Absentia Rates - Initial Case Completions
Figure 24 - In Absentia Rates for Never Detained Aliens - Initial Case Completions
Figure 25 - In Absentia Rates for Released Aliens - Initial Case Completions
Figure 26 - In Absentia Rates for Non-Detained Aliens - Initial Case Completions
Figure 27 - Total BIA Cases Received and Completed
Figure 28 - BIA Receipts by Case Type
Figure 29 - BIA Completions by Case Type
Figure 30 - FY 2015 Appeals from IJ Decisions Completed by Country of Nationality
Figure 31 - Appeals from IJ Decisions: Percentage of Represented Cases
Figure 32 - Case Appeals from IJ Decisions: Detained and Total
Figure 33 - Immigration Judge Decisions (Initial Case) Appealed
Figure 34 - Immigration Court Pending Cases by Fiscal Year End
Figure 35 - BIA Pending Cases by Fiscal Year End
Figure 36 - OCAHO Cases Received and Completed

ii

A2
A7
A8
C1
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
D1
E1
F1
G1
H1
I1
J1
J2
K1
K3
K3
K4
K5
K6
L1
P1
P2
P3
P4
Q2
Q3
Q3
S1
T1
U1
V1
W1
W3
X1

 FY 2015 STATISTICS YEARBOOK
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Page
List of Tables:
Table 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received by Court for FY 2014 and FY 2015

A3

Table 1A - Total Immigration Court Receipts by Court and Type of Matter for FY 2015

A4

Table 2 - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court for FY 2014 and FY 2015

A5

Table 2A - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court and Type of Matter for FY 2015
Table 3 - Immigration Court Cases Received by Case Type

A6
B1

Table 4 - Immigration Court Initial Case Completions by Case Type

B2

Table 4A - Immigration Court Subsequent Case Completions by Case Type

B2

Table 5 - FY 2015 Changes of Venue and Transfers
Table 6 - Initial Case Completions by Country of Nationality: Top 25
Nationalities for FY 2011 - FY 2015
Table 7 - Initial Case Completions by Language: Top 25
Languages for FY 2011 - FY 2015

C7

Table 8 - FY 2015 Immigration Court Initial Case Completions for Detained Cases
Table 9 - IHP Initial Case Completions by Disposition
Table 10 - FY 2015 Immigration Court Initial Case Completions with Applications for Relief
Table 11 - Asylum Completions by Court for FY 2015
Table 12 - FY 2015 Asylum Grant Rate by Immigration Court
Table 13 - Asylum Grants By Country of Nationality: Top 25 Nationalities for
FY 2011 - FY 2015
Table 14 - FY 2015 Convention Against Torture Cases by Disposition

G3
H2
I2
J3
K2
L2
M1

Table 15 - FY 2015 Convention Against Torture Completions by Court

M2

Table 16 - Grants of Relief

N1

D2
E2

Table 17 - Initial Case Completions: IJ Removal Decisions Compared to Voluntary
Departure Decisions

O1

Table 18 - BIA Receipts by Type

R2

Table 19 - BIA Completions by Type
Table 20 - Appeals from IJ Decisions Completed by Country of Nationality: Top 25
Nationalities for FY 2011 - FY 2015

R2
S2

Table 21 - Breakdown of BIA Completions of Detained Case Appeals from IJ Decisions

U2

Table 22 - Immigration Court Pending Cases

W2

iii

 Immigration Courts:
Total Matters Received and Completed
When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charges an alien with a
violation of immigration law by issuing a charging document, typically either a Notice to
Appear (NTA) or a Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) obtains jurisdiction over the case. EOIR has oversight over
the immigration courts nationwide, and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which has
appellate review over immigration judge decisions. Once EOIR has either ordered an
alien removed, or granted relief or protection from removal, DHS is responsible for
effectuating that alien’s physical removal or providing that alien evidence of their
immigration status.
In immigration court, aliens appear before an immigration judge (IJ) and either
contest or concede the charges against them. In some instances, the immigration judge
adjourns the case and sets a continuance date. The alien may file an application for
relief or protection and, after hearing the merits of the case, the immigration judge
renders a decision, either ordering the alien removed, or granting relief or protection
from removal. If the immigration judge decides that DHS has not established
removability, the immigration judge may terminate the case.
Immigration judges also consider matters such as bonds and motions.
•

An immigration judge holds bond redetermination hearings when an alien in
custody seeks release on their own recognizance, or seeks a reduction in
the amount of bond previously set by DHS. In its data, EOIR does not
include bond redetermination hearings that occur before EOIR receives the
charging document from DHS.

•

Either the alien or DHS may request by motion that a case an immigration
judge previously heard be reopened, reconsidered, or recalendared.

For the purposes of this Yearbook, the term “immigration court matters” includes
cases (deportation, exclusion, removal, credible fear review, reasonable fear review,
claimed status review, asylum only, rescission, continued detention review, Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, and withholding only); bond
redeterminations; and motions to reopen, reconsider, or recalendar. “Immigration court
receipts” are defined as the total number of charging documents; bond
redeterminations; and motions to reopen, reconsider, or recalendar that the immigration
courts received during the reporting period. “Immigration court completions” include
immigration judge decisions and other completions (such as administrative closings) on
cases, bond redeterminations, and motions that immigration judges did not grant.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

A1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Figure 1
Total Immigration Court Matters
Received and Completed
340,000
320,000
300,000
280,000
260,000
240,000
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

Receipts

FY 14

FY 15

Total Immigration Court Matters
Receipts
Completions
337,522
309,380
FY 11
312,085
290,090
FY 12
277,469
254,341
FY 13
318,197
248,689
FY 14
284,667
262,293
FY 15

Completions

As shown in Figure 1, the number of matters the immigration courts received
decreased by 16 percent between Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 and FY 2015 and has
decreased by 11 percent in the last fiscal year. The number of matters the immigration
courts completed decreased by 15 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2015.
While some courts showed decreases in receipts from FY 2014 levels, others
showed increases in receipts. In Table 1 (page A3), courts with increases in receipts of
25 percent or more are highlighted in blue and courts with decreases of 25 percent or
more are highlighted in red. The immigration court in Seattle, WA, showed the largest
(100 percent) increase in receipts. The immigration court in Harlingen, TX, showed the
largest (79 percent) decrease. Table 1A (page A4) identifies receipts for FY 2015 by
type of matter.
Table 2 (page A5) provides a comparison of FY 2014 and FY 2015 completions
by immigration court. Courts with increases in completions of 25 percent or more are
highlighted in blue, and those with decreases of 25 percent or more are highlighted in
red. New Orleans, LA, showed the largest (217 percent) increase in completions.
Saipan, CNMI, showed the largest (37 percent) decrease. Table 2A (page A6) identifies
completions for FY 2015 by type of matter.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

A2

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Table 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received by Court for FY 2014 and FY 2015
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

A3

FY 2014
7,018
10,317
5,117
5,163
2,709
3,126
5,713
1,315
5,351
11,322
3,119
8,940
6,127
3,724
2,816
4,740
3,005
4,925
7,840
174
6,037
492
10,628
1,375
384
13,441
14,488
1,904
2,630
9,498
2,290
19,961
9,825
3,327
9,026
2,011
17,869
6,154
7,239
2,492
4,100
8,285
2,152
3,159
1,070
37
1,942
15,092
2,148
12,729
1,593
6,718
6,750
698
287
2,866
4,939
318,197

FY 2015
6,490
7,585
4,616
7,086
2,418
2,925
6,211
414
4,651
10,103
2,667
9,356
6,550
2,299
2,796
3,984
1,394
3,128
8,290
118
4,741
631
2,272
1,308
393
8,450
7,796
2,761
2,462
6,156
2,148
18,105
6,063
3,594
13,461
2,674
17,666
6,231
8,373
2,546
4,140
10,075
2,209
2,202
1,498
19
1,712
12,515
2,576
14,126
3,190
5,890
5,732
592
211
2,503
4,565
284,667

Rate of Change
-8%
-26%
-10%
37%
-11%
-6%
9%
-69%
-13%
-11%
-14%
5%
7%
-38%
-1%
-16%
-54%
-36%
6%
-32%
-21%
28%
-79%
-5%
2%
-37%
-46%
45%
-6%
-35%
-6%
-9%
-38%
8%
49%
33%
-1%
1%
16%
2%
1%
22%
3%
-30%
40%
-49%
-12%
-17%
20%
11%
100%
-12%
-15%
-15%
-26%
-13%
-8%
-11%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Table 1A - Total Immigration Court Receipts by Court and Type of Matter for FY 2015
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

A4

New NTAs
3,325
5,781
3,684
5,775
1,269
1,807
3,946
251
3,933
7,160
1,936
7,804
3,993
1,456
1,747
2,927
1,116
1,733
4,174
104
2,777
486
1,507
941
231
5,808
7,071
1,750
1,814
3,522
1,502
13,547
3,859
3,159
9,489
2,469
15,150
4,416
4,700
1,672
3,064
5,798
1,863
1,727
1,237
15
1,043
8,036
2,118
10,730
2,739
4,209
2,914
533
191
1,057
2,469
199,534

Bonds
3,121
1,052
439
624
1,125
459
938
1
306
2,107
488
835
2,244
695
1,017
998
89
1,353
4,056
0
1,941
46
2
151
99
2,511
2
962
405
2,523
405
1,802
2,156
7
2,077
0
0
1,066
3,611
392
259
4,244
1
0
23
0
515
3,619
34
1,620
0
1,599
2,763
0
2
1,360
1,950
60,094

Motions
44
752
493
687
24
659
1,327
162
412
836
243
717
313
148
32
59
189
42
60
14
23
99
763
216
63
131
723
49
243
111
241
2,756
48
428
1,895
205
2,516
749
62
482
817
33
345
475
238
4
154
860
424
1,776
451
82
55
59
18
86
146
25,039

Total Matters
6,490
7,585
4,616
7,086
2,418
2,925
6,211
414
4,651
10,103
2,667
9,356
6,550
2,299
2,796
3,984
1,394
3,128
8,290
118
4,741
631
2,272
1,308
393
8,450
7,796
2,761
2,462
6,156
2,148
18,105
6,063
3,594
13,461
2,674
17,666
6,231
8,373
2,546
4,140
10,075
2,209
2,202
1,498
19
1,712
12,515
2,576
14,126
3,190
5,890
5,732
592
211
2,503
4,565
284,667

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Table 2 - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court for FY 2014 and FY 2015
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

A5

FY 2014
6,092
5,941
4,599
4,356
1,671
2,965
5,373
844
5,759
8,916
2,761
8,148
4,693
2,829
1,765
3,932
2,595
2,658
5,171
152
3,636
395
2,625
1,385
455
10,409
3,044
1,466
2,578
7,156
2,341
20,810
6,457
3,070
8,866
1,046
16,805
4,897
5,881
3,032
5,097
5,408
2,169
3,893
1,508
62
1,665
7,171
2,626
10,341
2,454
6,281
5,170
1,188
287
2,530
3,265
248,689

FY 2015
5,458
7,104
7,357
5,160
1,641
2,948
5,722
1,017
5,645
8,412
2,701
10,467
4,810
2,448
1,922
3,134
2,477
2,048
6,181
126
2,929
371
2,925
1,862
547
7,137
6,235
1,767
2,169
4,804
2,473
22,934
4,466
4,089
11,123
3,319
18,036
4,547
6,455
2,898
5,845
6,393
2,580
4,139
1,432
39
1,907
7,685
2,382
12,299
2,444
5,501
4,166
1,340
198
2,319
3,760
262,293

Rate of Change
-10%
20%
60%
18%
-2%
-1%
6%
20%
-2%
-6%
-2%
28%
2%
-13%
9%
-20%
-5%
-23%
20%
-17%
-19%
-6%
11%
34%
20%
-31%
105%
21%
-16%
-33%
6%
10%
-31%
33%
25%
217%
7%
-7%
10%
-4%
15%
18%
19%
6%
-5%
-37%
15%
7%
-9%
19%
0%
-12%
-19%
13%
-31%
-8%
15%
5%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Table 2A - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court and Type of Matter for FY 2015
Immigration Court

Initial Case
Completions

ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

2,137
5,461
6,390
3,965
522
2,147
3,735
892
4,949
5,587
1,989
9,037
2,204
1,545
856
2,084
2,212
717
2,082
108
1,089
259
2,447
1,512
381
4,427
5,852
732
1,575
2,243
1,848
18,571
2,231
3,671
7,819
3,167
15,334
2,962
2,822
2,130
4,813
2,264
2,234
3,834
1,211
26
1,251
3,359
2,031
9,592
2,115
3,789
1,561
1,262
179
759
1,604
181,575

A6

Subsequent
Case
Completions
120
495
380
455
40
299
966
91
328
587
184
398
235
132
58
53
125
23
92
13
37
60
159
161
59
149
229
35
167
121
178
2,132
47
333
1,024
128
2,395
475
76
350
658
40
312
279
182
13
122
331
202
1,027
221
106
78
63
10
110
169
17,312

Bonds
3,175
1,048
429
624
1,068
452
934
1
304
2,105
477
799
2,335
716
993
978
90
1,299
3,976
0
1,792
45
1
155
97
2,525
1
969
372
2,394
405
1,774
2,165
7
2,050
0
0
1,026
3,525
388
263
4,081
1
0
22
0
487
3,769
34
1,592
0
1,559
2,512
0
2
1,422
1,940
59,178

Motions
(Not
Granted)
26
100
158
116
11
50
87
33
64
133
51
233
36
55
15
19
50
9
31
5
11
7
318
34
10
36
153
31
55
46
42
457
23
78
230
24
307
84
32
30
111
8
33
26
17
0
47
226
115
88
108
47
15
15
7
28
47
4,228

Total
Matters
5,458
7,104
7,357
5,160
1,641
2,948
5,722
1,017
5,645
8,412
2,701
10,467
4,810
2,448
1,922
3,134
2,477
2,048
6,181
126
2,929
371
2,925
1,862
547
7,137
6,235
1,767
2,169
4,804
2,473
22,934
4,466
4,089
11,123
3,319
18,036
4,547
6,455
2,898
5,845
6,393
2,580
4,139
1,432
39
1,907
7,685
2,382
12,299
2,444
5,501
4,166
1,340
198
2,319
3,760
262,293

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Figure 2 provides information on the type of matters the immigration courts
receive. Cases (new NTAs) formulate the bulk of the courts’ work; the courts also
process significant numbers of bonds and motions to reopen, reconsider, and
recalendar.

Figure 2

Immigration Court Matters Received
By Type
400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
FY 11

FY 12
New NTAs

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

FY 13

FY 14

Bonds

Motions

FY 15

Immigration Court Matters Received
New NTAs
Bonds
Motions
239,298
76,798
21,426
214,350
78,001
19,734
199,398
57,687
20,384
237,839
60,486
19,872
199,534
60,094
25,039

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

A7

Total
337,522
312,085
277,469
318,197
284,667

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Figure 3 provides information on the type of matters the immigration courts
completed.

Figure 3
Immigration Court Matters Completed
By Type
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
FY 11
FY 12
Initial Case Completions
Bonds

FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
Subsequent Case Completions
Motions (Not Granted)

Immigration Court Matters Completed

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

Initial Case
Completions

Subsequent
Case
Completions

Bonds

Motions
(Not
Granted)

209,293
188,223
173,176
168,140
181,575

18,736
18,401
19,088
16,597
17,312

75,723
78,080
57,325
59,590
59,178

5,628
5,386
4,752
4,362
4,228

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

A8

Total
309,380
290,090
254,341
248,689
262,293

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Immigration Courts:
Cases Received and Completed by Type
Until April 1, 1997, the two major types of cases adjudicated by immigration
courts were exclusion and deportation cases. Individuals who the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) charged as excludable were placed in exclusion
proceedings. Exclusion cases generally involved a person who tried to enter the United
States, but was stopped at the point of entry because INS found the person to be
inadmissible. Deportation cases usually arose when INS alleged that an alien had
entered the country illegally, or had entered legally, but then violated one or more
conditions of their visa.
Provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 established six new types of cases: removal, credible fear review, reasonable fear
review, claimed status review, asylum only, and withholding only. Additional types of
cases include: rescission, continued detention review, and Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act (NACARA).
Table 3 shows all types of cases that the immigration courts received between
Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 and FY 2015. Deportation and exclusion case types are no
longer reported on this page as they were replaced by removal cases due to the
changes in the law noted above.
Table 3 - Immigration Court Cases Received by Case Type

Type of Case

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Removal
Credible Fear
Reasonable Fear
Claimed Status
Asylum Only
Rescission
Continued Detention Review
NACARA
Withholding Only

236,604
885
441
26
403
49
5
1
884

211,285
739
815
37
356
25
2
0
1,091

193,660
1,770
1,159
31
395
47
0
2
2,334

226,042
6,498
1,777
22
294
31
3
4
3,168

187,005
6,629
2,587
21
255
46
2
1
2,988

Total

239,298

214,350

199,398

237,839

199,534

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

B1

 Table 4 shows all types of the immigration courts’ initial case completions for the
period FY 2011 to FY 2015. Note that initial case completions reflect immigration judge
decisions and other completions. As shown in Tab C, other completions accounted for
23 percent of the cases completed in FY 2015.
Table 4 - Immigration Court Initial Case Completions by Case Type

Type of Case

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Deportation
Exclusion
Removal
Credible Fear
Reasonable Fear
Claimed Status
Asylum Only
Rescission
Continued Detention Review
NACARA
Withholding Only

669
61
206,038
893
443
28
423
46
3
8
681

639
54
184,847
707
775
35
366
36
2
2
760

698
54
167,753
1,727
1,139
32
381
39
2
3
1,348

531
36
156,470
6,351
1,712
23
360
34
2
1
2,620

570
57
169,043
6,630
2,570
19
294
30
3
2
2,357

Total

209,293

188,223

173,176

168,140

181,575

Table 4A shows all types of the immigration courts’ subsequent case completions
for the period FY 2011 to FY 2015.
Table 4A - Immigration Court Subsequent Case Completions by Case Type

Type of Case

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

Deportation
Exclusion
Removal
Credible Fear Review
Reasonable Fear Review
Claimed Status
Asylum Only
Rescission
Continued Detention Review
NACARA
Withholding Only

1,972
204
16,427
0
0
2
94
4
0
2
31

1,668
149
16,455
0
0
0
68
2
0
0
59

1,833
175
16,947
0
0
1
74
3
0
5
50

1,420
121
14,899
0
0
0
71
2
0
1
83

1,192
89
15,858
0
0
0
53
2
0
0
118

Total

18,736

18,401

19,088

16,597

17,312

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

B2

 Immigration Courts:
Case Completions by Disposition
After a hearing, the immigration judge either renders an oral decision or reserves
the decision and issues a decision at a later date. In rendering a decision, the
immigration judge may order the alien removed from the United States, grant some form
of relief, or terminate the case. In addition to decisions, there are other possible case
outcomes which are reported here as other completions such as administrative
closures.
Figure 4 and Figure 4A provide a breakdown of initial case completions and
subsequent case completions from Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2015 by type of
completion – either through an immigration judge decision or through another type of
completion.
Figure 4
Immigration Judge Initial Case
Completions By Completion Type
250,000

Immigration Judge Initial Case Completions by
Completion Type

200,000

Decisions

150,000
100,000
50,000
0
FY 11

FY 12
Decisions

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

202,716
171,494
143,790
136,652
139,048

Other
Completions
6,577
16,729
29,386
31,488
42,527

Total
209,293
188,223
173,176
168,140
181,575

Other Completions

Figure 4A
Immigration Judge Subsequent Case
Completions By Completion Type
20,000

Immigration Judge Subsequent Case
Completions by Completion Type

15,000

Decisions
10,000
5,000
0
FY 11

FY 12
Decisions

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

17,557
15,891
14,882
12,942
13,364

Other
Completions
1,179
2,510
4,206
3,655
3,948

Total
18,736
18,401
19,088
16,597
17,312

Other Completions

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C1

 Figure 5 provides a breakdown of removal proceeding immigration judge
decisions by disposition on initial case completions for FY 2011 to FY 2015.
Immigration judges first decide whether or not the charges against an alien should be
sustained. If the charges are not sustained or if the alien has established eligibility for
citizenship, the judge terminates the case. If the charges are sustained, the judge
decides whether to order the alien removed from the United States or to grant relief. In
some cases, the immigration judge may permit the alien to depart the United States
voluntarily. Orders of voluntary departure are counted as removals.
Figure 5

Immigration Judge Decisions in Removal Proceedings
By Disposition - Initial Case Completions
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
FY 11

FY 12

Termination

FY 13
Relief

FY 14

Removal

FY 15

Other

Immigration Judge Decisions in Removal Proceedings By Disposition - Initial Case Completions
Termination

Relief

Removal

Other

Total

FY 11

20,496

26,194

152,861

674

200,225

FY 12

19,656

25,568

123,126

505

168,855

FY 13

19,119

23,738

95,838

531

139,226

FY 14

17,031

19,660

88,559

397

125,647

FY 15

21,546

17,211

88,128

460

127,345

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C2

 Cases may also be presented before immigration judges to review decisions by
asylum officers on credible or reasonable fear. These cases are not yet in removal
proceedings. Table 5 & 5A provide a breakdown of credible fear review decisions and
reasonable fear review decisions by disposition on initial case completions for FY 2011
to FY 2015.
Table 5
Credible Fear Review Decisions by Disposition – Initial Case Completions
Vacated - DHS
PD
Other
Decision and
Administrative
Administrative
Other
Administrative
Found Credible
Closing - Other
Closure
Completion
Fear

Affirmed - DHS
Decision and no
Credible Fear
FY 11

774

110

7

1

1

0

Total
893

FY 12

617

81

9

0

0

0

707

FY 13

1,503

206

17

1

0

0

1,727

FY 14

5,228

1,055

67

0

1

0

6,351

FY 15

5,221

1,344

60

3

1

1

6,630

Table 5A
Reasonable Fear Review Decisions by Disposition – Initial Case Completions
Vacated - DHS
PD
Affirmed - DHS
Other
Decision and
Administrative
Administrative
Decision and No
Other
Administrative
Found
Closing - Other
Closure
Reasonable Fear
Completion
Reasonable Fear

Total

FY 11

363

67

13

0

0

0

443

FY 12

612

148

14

1

0

0

775

FY 13

979

130

27

1

2

0

1,139

FY 14

1,440

229

38

3

2

0

1,712

FY 15

2,057

449

55

6

1

2

2,570

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C3

 Figure 5A provides a breakdown of removal proceeding immigration judge
decisions by disposition on subsequent case completions for FY 2011 to FY 2015.

Figure 5A
Immigration Judge Decisions in Removal Proceedings
By Disposition - Subsequent Case Completions
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
FY 11

FY 12
Termination

FY 13
Relief

FY 14

Removal

FY 15

Other

Immigration Judge Decisions in Removal Proceedings By Disposition - Subsequent Case
Completions
Termination

Relief

Removal

Other

Total

FY 11

5,086

5,300

6,701

346

17,433

FY 12

5,305

4,361

5,850

255

15,771

FY 13

5,350

3,790

5,407

218

14,765

FY 14

5,211

2,934

4,420

239

12,804

FY 15

6,824

2,415

3,806

167

13,212

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C4

 Figure 6 provides a breakdown of removal proceeding other completions by
disposition on initial case completions for FY 2011 to FY 2015. Cases that are not
decided on their merits are classified as other completions. The increase in the number
of other completions over the last five fiscal years is largely due to an increase in the
number of administratively closed cases.

Figure 6

Other Completions in Removal Proceeding by Disposition - Initial
Case Completions
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Administrative Closure

Failure to Prosecute

Other Administrative Completion

Temporary Protected Status

Other Completions in Removal Proceeding by Disposition - Initial Case Completions
Administrative
Closure

Failure to
Prosecute

Other Administrative
Completion

Temporary
Protected Status

Total

FY 11

5,339

869

97

238

6,543

FY 12

15,686

660

106

233

16,685

FY 13

28,363

596

143

177

29,279

FY 14

30,731

414

127

118

31,390

FY 15

42,025

49

192

59

42,325

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C5

 Figure 6A provides a breakdown of removal proceeding other completions by
disposition on subsequent case completions for FY 2011 to FY 2015. These also
showed an increase in administrative closures over the five-year time period.

Figure 6A

Removal Proceeding Other Completions by Disposition
Subsequent Case Completions
5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Administrative Closure

Failure to Prosecute

Other Administrative Completion

Temporary Protected Status

Removal Proceeding Other Completions by Disposition - Subsequent Case Completions
Administrative
Closure

Failure to
Prosecute

Other Administrative
Completion

Temporary
Protected Status

Total

FY 11

988

11

122

49

1,170

FY 12

2,378

5

72

46

2,501

FY 13

4,046

4

85

55

4,190

FY 14

3,515

1

87

33

3,636

FY 15

3,831

0

82

14

3,927

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C6

 Figure 7 provides information on the number of cases transferred to a different
hearing location or granted a change of venue for FY 2011 to FY 2015. The number of
changes of venue increased by 30 percent in the last five years, and the number of
transfers increased by two percent in that same period.

Figure 7

Changes of Venue and Transfers
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

Changes of Venue

FY 14

FY 15

Transfers

Changes of Venue and Transfers
Changes of
Venue

Transfers

Total

FY 11

38,733

36,784

75,517

FY 12

43,882

39,636

83,518

FY 13

50,911

37,817

88,728

FY 14

64,522

40,862

105,384

FY 15

50,244

37,344

87,588

Table 5B provides a breakdown of cases, by immigration court for FY 2015, for
which an immigration judge granted a motion to change venue or transfers a case.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C7

 Table 5B – FY 2015 Changes of Venue and Transfers
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Changes of Venue
1,272
899
492
587
334
277
325
921
480
1,781
250
474
2,001
200
309
75
973
137
2,360
31
1,592
353
5,387
146
14
24
2,012
191
171
1,238
169
2,601
12
422
2,901
2,696
1,402
643
250
178
474
355
330
907
169
0
153
5,386
903
1,649
409
424
1,192
153
52
16
1,092
50,244

Transfers
84
3,353
310
19
483
381
913
58
85
1,845
347
1,896
927
329
662
729
130
1,173
1
18
30
6
127
303
18
2,720
402
1,253
349
16
159
1,272
1,967
730
225
136
129
887
1,818
449
121
2,516
307
64
111
0
256
4,859
92
1,608
2
0
0
11
17
478
163
37,344

Total
1,356
4,252
802
606
817
658
1,238
979
565
3,626
597
2,370
2,928
529
971
804
1,103
1,310
2,361
49
1,622
359
5,514
449
32
2,744
2,414
1,444
520
1,254
328
3,873
1,979
1,152
3,126
2,832
1,531
1,530
2,068
627
595
2,871
637
971
280
0
409
10,245
995
3,257
411
424
1,192
164
69
494
1,255
87,588

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

C8

 Immigration Courts:
Initial Case Completions by Country of Nationality
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the top 10 nationalities accounted for approximately 86
percent of all initial case completions, as shown in Figure 8. A total of 215 nationalities
are reported in the FY 2015 immigration judge initial case completions. Mexico and
Central American countries are consistently among the predominant nationalities of
these completions.
Figure 8
FY 2015 Initial Case Completions
by Country of Nationality
MEXICO
32.26%

All Others
14.10%
CUBA 0.75%
HAITI 0.78%
DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
1.06%

HONDURAS
14.79%

INDIA 1.12%
ECUADOR
1.67%
CHINA 4.40%

GUATEMALA
14.79%
EL SALVADOR
14.29%

FY 2015 Initial Case Completions by Country of Nationality

Country of Nationality

Initial Case
Completions

MEXICO
HONDURAS
GUATEMALA
EL SALVADOR
CHINA
ECUADOR
INDIA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
HAITI
CUBA
All Others
Total

58,571
26,853
26,851
25,951
7,981
3,024
2,039
1,929
1,423
1,353
25,600
181,575

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

% of Total
32.26%
14.79%
14.79%
14.29%
4.40%
1.67%
1.12%
1.06%
0.78%
0.75%
14.10%
100%
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

D1

 Table 6 provides information on the top 25 nationalities for initial case
completions each year for FY 2011 through FY 2015. During the five-year period, eight
of the top 10 nationalities were: Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, China,
India, Dominican Republic, and Cuba.
Table 6 - Initial Case Completions by Country of Nationality
Top 25 Nationalities: FY 2011 - FY 2015
Rank

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

1

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

2

Guatemala

Guatemala

Guatemala

El Salvador

Honduras

3

El Salvador

El Salvador

El Salvador

Guatemala

Guatemala

4

Honduras

Honduras

Honduras

Honduras

El Salvador

5

China
Dominican
Republic

China

China

China

6

China
Dominican
Republic
Cuba

Cuba

Ecuador
Dominican
Republic

Ecuador

7

Cuba
Dominican
Republic

8

Jamaica

India

Ecuador

Cuba

India
Dominican
Republic

9

Colombia

Jamaica

India

India

Haiti

10

India

Colombia

Jamaica

Jamaica

Cuba

11

Haiti

Ecuador

Colombia

Colombia

Jamaica

12

Brazil

Haiti

Philippines

Haiti

Colombia

13

Ecuador

Brazil

Brazil

Peru

Brazil

14

Philippines

Philippines

Haiti

Philippines

Peru

15
16

Peru
Nicaragua

Peru
Nicaragua

Peru
Nicaragua

Brazil
Nicaragua

Nicaragua
Philippines

17

Venezuela

Nigeria

Pakistan

Nigeria

Somalia

18

Ghana

Pakistan

Nigeria

Nepal

Nepal

19

Nigeria

Ghana

Venezuela

Pakistan

Nigeria

20

Canada

Venezuela

Kenya

Venezuela

Bangladesh

21

Pakistan

South Korea

Russia

Ethiopia

Pakistan

22

Russia

Russia

Ghana

Egypt

Ghana

23

Kenya

Nepal

Kenya

Ethiopia

24

South Korea
Trinidad And
Tobago

South Korea

Russia

Russia

25

Kenya

Canada
Trinidad And
Tobago

Ethiopia

Vietnam

Venezuela

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

D2

 Immigration Courts:
Initial Case Completions by Language
Figure 9 shows a breakdown of Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 initial case completions by
language. Out of 258 languages from the initial case completions in FY 2015, the top
five languages – Spanish, English, Mandarin, Punjabi, and Creole – accounted for
approximately 93 percent of these initial case completions.
Figure 9

FY 2015 Initial Case Completions
By Language
Other 7.15%
Creole 0.62%
Punjabi 0.67%
Mandarin 3.66%
Spanish 76.50%

English 11.40%

FY 2015 Initial Case Completions by Language
Language
Cases
% of Total
Spanish
137,851
76.50%
English
20,539
11.40%
Mandarin
6,592
3.66%
Punjabi
1,199
0.67%
Creole
1,115
0.62%
Other
12,890
7.15%
Total
180,186
100.00%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

E1

 Table 7 provides information on the top 25 languages each year for FY 2011
through FY 2015. For the five-year period, seven languages remained in the top 10
each year. These languages were: Spanish, English, Mandarin, Creole, Russian,
Arabic, and Portuguese.
Table 7 – Initial Case Completions by Language
Top 25 Languages: FY 2011 – FY 2015
Rank

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

1

Spanish

Spanish

Spanish

Spanish

Spanish

2

English

English

English

English

English

3

Mandarin

Mandarin

Mandarin

Mandarin

Mandarin

4

Russian

Russian

Russian

Arabic

Punjabi

5

Creole

Arabic

Arabic

Russian

Creole

6

Portuguese

Creole

Portuguese

Punjabi

Russian

7

Arabic

Portuguese

Creole

Creole

Arabic

8

French

French

Punjabi

Portuguese

Portuguese

9

Korean

Korean

French

French

Mam

10

Foo Chow

Foo Chow

Korean

Korean

Somali

11

Punjabi

Foo Chow

Nepali

Quiche

12

Punjabi
Tigrigna Eritrean

Gujarati

Nepali

Foo Chow

French

13

Amharic

Nepali

Amharic

Somali

Nepali

14

Gujarati

Amharic

Indonesian

Amharic

Bengali

15

Indonesian

Indonesian

Indonesian

Foo Chow

16

Nepali

Vietnamese

Tagalog
RomanianMoldovan

17

Vietnamese

Vietnamese

Quiche

Indonesian

18

Tagalog

Tagalog
Tigrigna Eritrean

Gujarati

Vietnamese

Konjobal

19

Armenian

Urdu

Urdu

Gujarati

Amharic

20

Polish

Armenian

Armenian

Tagalog

Armenian

21

Somali

Gujarati

Albanian
Tamil

Albanian
Tigrigna Eritrean
Somali

Albanian

22
23

Tamil
RomanianMoldovan
Albanian

24

Urdu

Somali

Polish

Armenian

Albanian
RomanianMoldovan

25

RomanianMoldovan

Polish

Quiche

Konjobal

Urdu

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Mam

Urdu
Bengali

Korean

Vietnamese

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

E2

 Immigration Courts:
Initial Case Completions by Representation Status
An attorney or other representative whom the Board of Immigration Appeals has
fully accredited as well as reputable individuals or law students or graduates under the
direct supervision of an attorney with the permission of the immigration judge may
represent individuals in proceedings before an immigration judge. Many individuals who
appear before EOIR are indigent and cannot afford a private attorney. EOIR provides
lists of pro bono service providers and maintains a list of fully-accredited representatives
who may be able and willing to assist indigent aliens in immigration proceedings. EOIR
also is implementing a policy in which EOIR provides, among other procedural
protections, representatives for unrepresented immigration detainees whom an
immigration judge determines have serious mental disorders that render them mentally
incompetent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings. In addition, EOIR
funds three efforts to provide legal representation to certain unaccompanied alien
children. These efforts are the justice AmeriCorps program (in partnership with the
Corporation for National and Community Service), and two smaller pilot innovation
projects serving children appearing before the Baltimore and Memphis Immigration
Courts.
As shown in Figure 10, the percentage of represented aliens has increased over
the last five years, increasing from 43 percent in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to 58 percent in
FY 2015. This data shows if an alien was represented at any point during the
proceeding.
Figure 10
Initial Case Completions
Percentage of Represented Cases
100%

80%

59%

60%

43%

55%

58%

50%

40%

20%

Initial Case Completions
Representation in Immigration Courts
Represented Unrepresented
Total
FY 11
89,382
119,911 209,293
FY 12
94,280
93,943 188,223
FY 13
101,725
71,451 173,176
FY 14
93,126
75,014 168,140
FY 15
105,619
75,956 181,575

0%
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016
F1

 Immigration Courts:
Initial Case Completions for Detained Cases
Detention locations include Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Service
Processing Centers (SPC), DHS contract detention facilities, state and local
government facilities, and Bureau of Prisons institutions. For the purpose of this
Yearbook, Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) cases are considered detained cases.
See Tab H.
Figure 11 provides a comparison of detained initial case completions to total
initial case completions. The number of initial cases completed for detained aliens
decreased 55 percent from Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2015.
Figure 11

Immigration Court Initial Case
Completions: Detained and Total
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Initial Case Completions for All Aliens
Initial Case Completions for Detained Aliens

Immigration Court Initial Case Completions
for Detained Aliens (Including IHP)
Initial Case Completions for
Detained Aliens
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

Initial Case Completions for
All Aliens

112,787
89,621
63,331
61,590
51,005

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

209,293
188,223
173,176
168,140
181,575

Percent
Detained
54%
48%
37%
37%
28%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

G1

 Table 8 provides information, by immigration court, on FY 2015 detained
completions. The following immigration courts each completed more than 3,000
detained initial cases in FY 2014: Dallas, Houston SPC, and Stewart Detention Facility.
Immigration courts in three border states – Texas, Arizona, and California – accounted
for 51 percent of the detained completions in FY 2015. Courts in those three states are
highlighted in blue in Table 8.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

G2

 Table 8 - FY 2015 Immigration Court Initial Case Completions for Detained Cases

Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Completions
2,125
1,051
677
416
515
445
471
10
1,505
469
3,355
1,188
660
839
2,084
221
700
2,032
108
1,088
44
148
227
99
4,424
88
688
305
2,224
569
1,210
2,222
10
560
8
686
2,811
336
307
2,264
4
76
69
556
1,674
50
1,171
3,766
1,546
412
179
714
1,599
51,005

Immigration Courts in U.S./Mexico Border States

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

G3

 Immigration Courts:
Institutional Hearing Program Cases Received and Completed
The Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) is a cooperative effort between EOIR;
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and various federal, state, and municipal
corrections agencies. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, DHS filed charging documents with the
immigration courts for incarcerated aliens in 58 different institutions. Immigration judges
and court staff either travel to these institutions to conduct IHP hearings or the
immigration judges conduct the hearings by video teleconference.
Figure 12 provides information on IHP receipts and completions for FY 2011 to
FY 2015. IHP receipts declined by 45 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2015.
Figure 12

IHP Cases
Received and Completed

IHP Cases Received and
Completed
New
Initial Case
NTAs
Completions
FY 11
5,276
4,332
FY 12
4,396
3,854
FY 13
4,049
3,506
FY 14
3,918
3,251
FY 15
2,913
2,736

5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

New NTAs
Initial Case Completions

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016
H1

 Table 9 provides a breakdown of IHP initial case completions by disposition. IHP
completions declined by 37 percent between FY 2011 and FY 2015.

Table 9 - IHP Initial Case Completions by Disposition
FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

4,228
4,102
98
26
2

3,764
3,645
80
31
8

3,312
3,208
80
20
4

3,119
3,014
83
21
1

2,640
2,507
90
39
4

Other Completions

104

90

194

132

96

Total Completions

4,332

3,854

3,506

3,251

2,736

Total Decisions in IHP Cases
Removal
Termination
Relief
Other

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016
H2

 Immigration Courts:
Initial Case Completions with Applications for Relief
Figure 13 provides information on the percent of initial case completions in which
the alien filed an application for relief. For the purpose of this Yearbook, voluntary
departure (Tab O) is not considered an application for relief.
Figure 13
Immigration Court Initial Case
Completions Percent with Applications
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%

27%

40%

38%

FY 13

FY 14

33%

35%

30%
20%
10%
0%
FY 11

FY 12

FY 15

Initial Case Completions with and without Applications for Relief

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

with
Applications
56,338
62,210
68,625
63,464
63,929

Percent with
Applications
27%
33%
40%
38%
35%

without
Applications
152,955
126,013
104,551
104,676
117,646

Percent without
Applications
73%
67%
60%
62%
65%

Total
209,293
188,223
173,176
168,140
181,575

Table 10 shows the number and percentage of initial case completions with
applications for relief at each immigration court in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. Courts in
which 15 percent or less of the completions involved applications for relief are shown in
red. Courts in which 50 percent or more of the completions involved applications for
relief are shown in blue.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

I1

 Table 10 - FY 2015 Immigration Court Initial Case Completions with Applications for Relief
Initial Case
Completions
2,137
5,461
6,390
3,965
522
2,147
3,735
892
4,949
5,587
1,989
9,037
2,204
1,545
856
2,084
2,212
717
2,082
108
1,089
259
2,447
1,512
381
4,427
5,852
732
1,575
2,243
1,848
18,571
2,231
3,671
7,819
3,167
15,334
2,962
2,822
2,130
4,813
2,264
2,234
3,834
1,211
26
1,251
3,359
2,031
9,592
2,115
3,789
1,561
1,262
179
759
1,604
181,575

Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

# of Completions with
Applications
659
2,082
1,563
1,065
166
745
1,593
172
709
1,493
797
1,062
732
666
222
335
725
304
410
27
241
114
393
581
257
888
805
136
485
685
733
10,987
970
741
2,565
623
10,132
1,007
339
991
1,908
630
961
2,025
672
5
430
571
729
3,378
962
487
639
373
48
300
611
63,929

Percent with
Applications
31%
38%
24%
27%
32%
35%
43%
19%
14%
27%
40%
12%
33%
43%
26%
16%
33%
42%
20%
25%
22%
44%
16%
38%
67%
20%
14%
19%
31%
31%
40%
59%
43%
20%
33%
20%
66%
34%
12%
47%
40%
28%
43%
53%
55%
19%
34%
17%
36%
35%
45%
13%
41%
30%
27%
40%
38%
35%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

I2

 Immigration Courts:
Asylum Cases Received and Completed
There are two types of asylum processes – defensive and affirmative. The
defensive asylum process applies to aliens who appear before EOIR and who request
asylum before an immigration judge. The process is called “defensive” because it can
provide relief from being removed from the United States. The affirmative asylum
process applies to aliens who initially file an asylum application with the Department of
Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
For the purpose of this Yearbook, asylum receipts are based on the initial asylum
application received date and asylum completions are based on the initial case
completion. Figure 14 shows the affirmative and defensive asylum receipts at the
immigration courts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2015. Affirmative asylum receipts
have fallen sharply (82 percent) from FY 2014 to FY 2015.

Figure 14
Immigration Court Asylum Receipts
Affirmative and Defensive
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

Affirmative

FY 14

FY 15

Defensive

Immigration Court Asylum Receipts
Affirmative Defensive
Total
FY 11
25,042
17,916 42,958
FY 12
28,058
19,779 47,837
FY 13
22,263
22,885 45,148
FY 14
19,114
29,917 49,031
FY 15
3,379
42,391 45,770

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

J1

 As shown in Figure 15, asylum receipts increased by 7 percent and asylum
completions increased by 33 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2015. In the last year
although in the last year asylum completions increased by 13 percent and asylum
receipts decreased by 7 percent.
Figure 15

Asylum Cases
Receipts and Completions
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13
Receipts

FY 14

FY 15

Completions

Asylum Receipts and Completions
Receipts
Completions
FY 11
42,958
31,278
FY 12
47,837
33,898
FY 13
45,148
38,033
FY 14
49,031
36,699
FY 15
45,770
41,615

Table 11 provides information on FY 2015 asylum completions by immigration
court. In FY 2015, the New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA; San Francisco, CA; Arlington,
VA; Miami, FL; and Orlando, FL, immigration courts accounted for 58 percent of the
asylum completions.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

J2

 Table 11 - Asylum Completions by Court for FY 2015
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Completions
498
1,601
668
768
87
438
835
56
381
504
490
499
364
274
157
233
256
244
200
5
154
26
194
424
226
250
618
97
232
394
422
8,610
603
305
1,419
410
9,091
624
171
595
1,175
311
629
634
463
0
143
366
358
2,204
730
200
383
186
4
88
318
41,615

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

J3

 Immigration Courts:
Asylum Cases Completed by Disposition
Figure 16 provides the asylum grant rate for the past five years. The grant rate is
calculated as a percentage of asylum claims decided on the merits. The grant rate
decreased from Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (52 percent) to FY 2015 (48 percent), and has
fallen the past three years.
Figure 16

Immigration Court
Asylum Grant Rate
100%

80%

60%

52%

56%

53%

49%

48%

40%

20%

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

Asylum Grant Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
10,138
9,280
52%
10,718
8,504
56%
9,946
8,828
53%
8,791
9,227
49%
8,246
8,833
48%

0%
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Table 12 provides information on the FY 2015 asylum grant rate for each
individual immigration court.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

K1

 Table 12 – FY 2015 Asylum Grant Rate by Immigration Court
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Grants
42
230
5
193
7
60
173
3
21
118
31
24
103
15
12
6
9
132
11
0
6
0
11
31
162
13
32
17
37
17
3
442
138
63
160
22
4,423
32
7
29
97
75
67
37
68
0
15
67
71
596
131
6
92
24
0
8
52
8,246

Denials
361
133
239
254
58
161
59
9
146
142
98
255
120
90
105
165
55
92
115
5
93
1
29
96
37
178
309
50
80
219
102
1,210
408
50
344
39
847
34
129
89
191
184
51
13
80
0
36
232
50
206
228
112
168
48
4
45
179
8,833

Grant Rate
10%
63%
2%
43%
11%
27%
75%
25%
13%
45%
24%
9%
46%
14%
10%
4%
14%
59%
9%
0%
6%
0%
28%
24%
81%
7%
9%
25%
32%
7%
3%
27%
25%
56%
32%
36%
84%
48%
5%
25%
34%
29%
57%
74%
46%
0%
29%
22%
59%
74%
36%
5%
35%
33%
0%
15%
23%
48%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

K2

 Figures 17 and 18 show the grant rates for affirmative and defensive asylum
claims.
Figure 17

Immigration Court
Affirmative Grant Rate
100%
80%

67%

72%

74%

80%

75%

60%
40%
20%
0%
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

Immigration Court Affirmative Grant
Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
FY 11
7,319
3,618
67%
FY 12
7,827
3,002
72%
FY 13
7,314
2,619
74%
FY 14
6,011
1,951
75%
FY 15
4,833
1,185
80%

FY 15

Figure 18

Immigration Court
Defensive Grant Rate
100%
80%
60%
40%

33%

34%

30%

28%

31%

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

20%

Immigration Court Defensive Grant
Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
FY 11
2,819
5,662
33%
FY 12
2,891
5,502
34%
FY 13
2,632
6,209
30%
FY 14
2,780
7,276
28%
FY 15
3,413
7,648
31%

0%
FY 11

FY 12

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

K3

 Figure 19 illustrates all asylum initial case completions broken out by disposition.
The number of asylum grants decreased by 19 percent since FY 2011.
Figure 19
Asylum Completions
By Disposition
20,000
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000
2,500
0
FY 11
Grants

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

FY 12
Denials

FY 13
Withdrawn

FY 14
Abandoned

FY 15
Other

Asylum Completions by Disposition
Grants Denials Withdrawn Abandoned Other
10,138
9,280
5,136
1,430
5,294
10,718
8,504
5,356
1,297
8,023
9,946
8,828
6,411
1,439 11,409
8,791
9,227
5,800
1,515 11,366
8,246
8,833
5,466
1,435 17,635

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Total
31,278
33,898
38,033
36,699
41,615

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

K4

 An applicant for asylum also is an applicant for withholding of removal under
section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Figure 20 depicts the
withholding of removal grant rate under section 241(b)(3) of the INA. Cases that had
grants for both asylum and withholding were omitted from the withholding of removal
grant rate because they have previously been counted as an asylum grant.
Figure 20

Immigration Court
Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
100%
90%

Immigration Court Withholding of
Removal Grant Rate
Grants Denials
Grant Rate
FY 11
1,670
9,943
14%
FY 12
1,552
9,204
14%
FY 13
1,518
9,986
13%
FY 14
1,468
11,059
12%
FY 15
1,199
10,234
10%

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

14%

14%

13%

12%

FY 13

FY 14

10%

10%
0%
FY 11

FY 12

FY 15

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

K5

 Figure 21 shows the percentage of cases in which asylum or withholding of
removal was granted. The overall grant rate from FY 2011 to FY 2015 has decreased
from 61 percent to 55 percent. The number of cases which result in asylum grants and
withholding grants decreased by 20 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2015. For the same
time period the number of denials for these cases remained largely unchanged.

Figure 21

Immigration Court
Asylum or Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
100%
90%
80%
70%

61%

64%

61%

60%

56%

55%

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Immigration Court Asylum or Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
Asylum Grants
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

Withholding of
Removal Grants

10,138
10,718
9,946
8,791
8,246

1,670
1,552
1,518
1,468
1,199

Denials of Both Asylum
and Withholding of
Removal
7,656
7,022
7,324
7,915
7,696

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Grant Rate
61%
64%
61%
56%
55%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

K6

 Immigration Courts:
Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality
Figure 22 displays the top 10 nationalities granted asylum in Fiscal Year (FY)
2015. In FY 2015 the top 10 nationalities accounted for 72 percent of all asylum grants.
China accounted for 44 percent of all asylum grants. A total of 134 nationalities were
represented among individuals granted asylum in FY 2015.
Figure 22
FY 2015 Asylum Grants
by Country of Nationality

All Others
32.05%

China 43.78%
Mexico 2.46%
Nepal 3.07%
Ethiopia 3.09%
Guatemala
4.47%
Honduras
3.72%

El Salvador
3.67%
India 3.67%

FY 2015 Asylum Grants by Country of
Nationality
% of
Country of Nationality
Completions
Total
China
3,610
43.78%
Guatemala
369
4.47%
Honduras
307
3.72%
India
303
3.67%
El Salvador
303
3.67%
Ethiopia
255
3.09%
Nepal
253
3.07%
Mexico
203
2.46%
All Others
2,643
32.05%
Total
8,246
100%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

L1

 Table 13 provides information on the top nationalities granted asylum for the
period FY 2011 to FY 2015. For each of the five years, five of the top 10 countries from
which aliens were granted asylum were represented: China, India, Ethiopia, Nepal, and
the Soviet Union.
Table 13 - Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality
Top 25 Nationalities: FY 2011 - FY 2015
Rank

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

1

China

China

China

China

China

2

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Ethiopia

India

Guatemala

3

Ethiopia

Nepal

Nepal

Ethiopia

Honduras

4

Nepal

Eritrea

India

Nepal

India

5

Egypt

Egypt

Egypt

Egypt

El Salvador

6

Soviet Union

Soviet Union

Soviet Union

Soviet Union

Ethiopia

7

India

India

Eritrea

El Salvador

Nepal

8

Somalia

Guatemala

Russia

Guatemala

Mexico

9

Colombia

El Salvador

El Salvador

Eritrea

Soviet Union

10

Russia

Pakistan

Mexico

Honduras

Somalia

11

Cameroon

Cameroon

Guatemala

Mexico

Egypt

12

Venezuela

Russia

Cameroon

Somalia

Eritrea

13

Guatemala

Guinea

Pakistan

Russia

Syria

14

Guinea

Venezuela

Guinea

Cameroon

Russia

15

El Salvador

Mexico

Sri Lanka

Pakistan

Bangladesh

16

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

Honduras

Venezuela

Cameroon

17

Armenia

Colombia

Somalia

Iraq

Albania

18

Albania

Indonesia

Venezuela

Sri Lanka

Nigeria

19

Iraq

Iraq

Indonesia

Gambia

Haiti

20

Sri Lanka

Iran

Mali

Albania

Colombia

21

Indonesia

Somalia

Gambia

Syria

Gambia

Mexico

Moldavia
(Moldova)

Colombia

Colombia

Pakistan

Iran

Honduras

Albania

Guinea

Iraq

Kenya

Gambia

Moldavia
(Moldova)

Moldavia
(Moldova)

Burkina Faso

Mali

Armenia

Bangladesh

Burkina Faso

Sri Lanka

22
23
24
25

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

L2

 Immigration Courts:
Convention Against Torture
In 1999, the Department of Justice implemented regulations regarding the
Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (Convention Against Torture or CAT). There are two forms of protection
under the 1999 regulations:
•

Withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture may be granted
to an alien who establishes that they would be tortured in the proposed
country of removal.

•

Deferral of removal may be available to aliens who are not eligible for
withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, but provides
less protection against removal as the protection can be more easily and
quickly terminated if it becomes possible to remove the alien.

As shown in Table 14, the immigration courts adjudicated 30,116 CAT
applications during Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. Of those, immigration judges granted 625
CAT applications, and the majority of those grants were withholding.
Table 14 - FY 2015 Convention Against Torture Cases by Disposition
Granted
Withholding
504

Deferral
121

Total
625

Denied

Other

9,858

13,864

Withdrawn
5,027

Abandoned
742

Total
30,116

Table 15 shows a breakdown of CAT completions by immigration courts. The
New York City, NY; Los Angeles, CA; San Francisco, CA; Miami, FL; Arlington, VA: and
Orlando, FL, immigration courts combined completed approximately 52 percent of the
total FY 2015 CAT cases.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

M1

 Table 15 - FY 2015 Convention Against Torture Completions by Court
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Completions
538
1,207
389
591
118
371
459
47
351
338
409
364
354
361
190
238
65
270
263
23
187
26
84
313
138
463
314
95
138
451
293
4,645
665
223
1,394
236
5,255
425
241
147
1,080
406
451
88
420
5
87
398
312
2,035
687
156
562
50
33
166
501
30,116

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

M2

 Immigration Courts:
Applications for Relief other than Asylum
Table 16 reflects grants of relief other than asylum during the period Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2015.

Table 16 – Grants of Relief*
Adjustment of Status; 212(c) Waivers; Suspension of Deportation; and Cancellation of Removal

Relief Granted to Lawful
Permanent Residents
Relief Granted
Under Section
212(c)
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015

Relief Granted to Non-Lawful Permanent Residents
Not Subject to Annual Cap of 4,000 Grants

Cancellation of
Removal

725
658
549
453
344

3,631
3,551
3,543
2,922
2,348

Adjustment
of Status to
LPR
5,866
4,709
3,873
2,440
1,538

Suspension
of
Deportation

Cancellation
of Removal

20
13
15
22
14

292
279
283
230
235

Subject to Annual Cap of
4,000 Grants
Suspension
of
Cancellation
Deportation
of Removal
1
0
0
1
0

3,301
3,508
3,628
3,504
3,540

* Grants of Relief are based on the initial case completion.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

N1

 Immigration Courts:
Voluntary Departure
For the purpose of the Yearbook, voluntary departure is considered a form of
removal, and not a type of relief. Immigration judge removal decisions on cases include
grants of voluntary departure. Table 17 shows the percentage of removal orders that
are grants of voluntary departure.

Table 17
Initial Case Completions
IJ Removal Decisions Compared to Voluntary Departure Decisions

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

Total
Removal
Decisions
154,774
125,244
99,677
98,346
98,705

Voluntary
Departure
Decisions
28,615
25,195
18,382
14,928
11,610

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Percent Voluntary
Departure Decisions
18%
20%
18%
15%
12%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

O1

 Immigration Courts:
In Absentia Orders
When an alien fails to appear for a hearing, the immigration judge may conduct a
hearing in the alien’s absence (in absentia).
Figure 23 compares immigration judge decisions on the initial case completion
and in absentia orders. Of the immigration judge decisions rendered in Fiscal Year (FY)
2015, 27 percent involved in absentia orders. The increase of in absentia orders by 69
percent from FY 2011 to FY 2015 and the decrease of immigration judge decisions by
31 percent in the same five-year time period caused the in absentia rate to reach a five
year high of 27 percent.
Figure 23

In Absentia Rates - Initial Case Completions
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

27%
11%

11%

FY 11

FY 12

15%

19%

FY 13

FY 14

0%
FY 15

In Absentia Rates - Initial Case Completions
In Absentia
Orders
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

IJ Decisions

22,564
19,495
21,539
26,132
38,229

202,716
171,494
143,790
136,652
139,048

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

In Absentia
Rate
11%
11%
15%
19%
27%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

P1

 The following figures show EOIR data on in absentia rates for never detained
aliens, aliens released on bond or recognizance, and non-detained aliens (never
detained and released).
Figure 24 shows a comparison of the number of in absentia orders with the
number of immigration judge decisions on the initial case completion for aliens who
have never been detained. From FY 2011 to FY 2015 the number of in absentia orders
for never detained aliens increased by 71 percent while the number of immigration
judge decisions for those aliens decreased by nine percent in the same time period.
Figure 24

In Absentia Rates for
Never Detained Aliens - Initial Case
Completions
100%
80%
60%

31%

40%

23%
20%

20%

23%

FY 12

FY 13

44%

0%
FY 11

FY 14

FY 15

In Absentia Rates for Never Detained Aliens - Initial Case
Completions

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

In Absentia
Orders
15,707
11,713
12,090
15,355
26,833

IJ Decisions
67,859
57,816
53,678
48,771
61,425

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

In Absentia Rate
23%
20%
23%
31%
44%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

P2

 In absentia orders for aliens released on bond or on their own recognizance are
shown in Figure 25. From FY 2011 to FY 2015 the number of in absentia orders for
aliens released on bond or on their own recognizance increased by 73 percent while the
number of immigration judge decisions for those aliens increased by 18 percent.
Figure 25

In Absentia Rates for
Released Aliens - Initial Case Completions
100%
80%
60%
40%

28%

33%

39%

41%

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

30%

20%
0%
FY 11

FY 12

In Absentia Rates for Released Aliens - Initial Case
Completions

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

In Absentia
Orders
6,557
7,699
9,358
10,658
11,325

IJ Decisions
23,224
25,258
28,091
27,262
27,443

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

In Absentia Rate
28%
30%
33%
39%
41%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

P3

 In absentia orders for non-detained aliens (which includes both never detained
and released aliens) are shown in Figure 26. From FY 2011 to FY 2015 the number of
in absentia orders for aliens who are not currently detained increased by 71 percent
while the number of immigration judge decisions for those aliens decreased by two
percent.
Figure 26

In Absentia Rates for
Non-Detained Aliens - Initial Case Completions
100%
80%
60%

34%

40%

24%

23%

26%

FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

43%

20%
0%
FY 14

FY 15

In Absentia Rates for Non-Detained Aliens - Initial Case
Completions

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

In Absentia
Orders
22,264
19,412
21,448
26,013
38,158

IJ Decisions
91,083
83,074
81,769
76,033
88,868

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

In Absentia Rate
24%
23%
26%
34%
43%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

P4

 Board of Immigration Appeals:
Total Cases Received and Completed
The majority of cases the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reviews arise from
decisions immigration judges make in removal, deportation, or exclusion cases. These
types of cases are listed below. For purposes of this Statistics Yearbook, these types of
cases are referred to as appeals from immigration judge decisions.
•

Case appeals from the decisions of immigration judges in removal, deportation,
and exclusion cases at the court level;

•

Appeals filed from the decisions of immigration judges on motions to reopen;

•

Motions to reopen and/or reconsider filed in cases already decided by the BIA;

•

Appeals pertaining to bond, parole, or detention;

•

Interlocutory appeals relating to important jurisdictional questions regarding the
administration of the immigration laws or recurring problems in the handling of
cases by immigration judges; and

•

Cases (or appeals) remanded from the Federal Court.

The BIA also has jurisdiction to review appeals arising from certain decisions that
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials render. These types of appeals are
listed below. For purposes of this Statistics Yearbook, appeals from these DHS
decisions are referred to as DHS decision appeals.
•

Family-based visa petitions adjudicated by DHS district directors or regional
service center directors;

•

Waivers of inadmissibility for non-immigrants under § 212(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act; and

•

Fines and penalties imposed upon carriers for violations of immigration laws.

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016
Q1

 Figure 27 provides total BIA cases received and completed for Fiscal Year (FY)
2011 to FY 2015. BIA receipts have decreased by 26 percent during this time period
while BIA completions have decreased by 13 percent. However, between FY 2014 and
FY 2015 completions increased by 11 percent while receipts only showed a slight
decrease.

Figure 27

Total BIA Cases
Received and Completed
50,000
45,000

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13
Receipts

FY 14

Total BIA Cases
Receipts Completions
39,452
39,256
34,087
39,594
34,808
36,689
29,759
30,823
29,313
34,244

FY 15

Completions

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016
Q2

 Figures 28 and 29 provide information on the types of cases the BIA receives
and completes. Appeals from immigration judge decisions make up the bulk of the
BIA’s work. Receipts of appeals from immigration judge decisions decreased by 10
percent from FY 2014 to FY 2015, while receipts of appeals from DHS decisions
increased by 47 percent. Completions of appeals from immigration judge decisions
remained relatively unchanged from FY 2014 to FY 2015, while completions of appeals
from DHS decisions increased by 102 percent for the same time period.
Figure 28

BIA Receipts
By Case Type
50,000
40,000

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

30,000
20,000
10,000

BIA Receipts by Case Type
Appeals from
Appeals from
DHS
IJ Decisions
Decisions
8,721
30,731
5,392
28,695
5,600
29,208
4,398
25,361
6,481
22,832

Total
Appeals
39,452
34,087
34,808
29,759
29,313

0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

Appeals from DHS Decisions

FY 14

FY 15

Appeals from IJ Decisions

Figure 29
BIA Completions
By Case Type
35,000
30,000
25,000

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000

BIA Completions by Case Type
Appeals from
Appeals from
Total
DHS
IJ Decisions
Appeals
Decisions
8,300
30,956
39,256
8,319
31,275
39,594
5,412
31,277
36,689
3,294
27,529
30,823
6,641
27,603
34,244

0
FY 11

FY 12

Appeals from DHS Decisions

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Appeals from IJ Decisions

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016
Q3

 Board of Immigration Appeals:
Cases Received and Completed by Type
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has jurisdiction over certain types of
cases arising from immigration judge decisions. For more information, refer to Page Q1.
For purposes of this Statistics Yearbook, these types of cases are referred to as appeals
from immigration judge decisions.
The BIA also has jurisdiction to review appeals arising from certain decisions that
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials render. These types of appeals are
listed at Page Q1. For purposes of this Statistics Yearbook, appeals from these DHS
decisions are referred to as DHS decision appeals.
As shown in Table 18 and Table 19, the majority of appeals from immigration
judge decisions are from case appeals and the majority of appeals from DHS decisions
are from visa petitions.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

R1

 Table 18 provides a breakdown of the types of cases the BIA received between
Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 and FY 2015.
Table 18 - BIA Receipts by Type

Total Appeals from IJ Decisions
Case Appeal
Appeal of IJ Motion to Reopen
Motion to Reopen/Reconsider-BIA
Bond Appeal
Bond MTR
Interlocutory Appeal
Federal Court Remand
Continued Detention Review
Zero Bond Appeal
Total Appeals from DHS Decisions
Decisions on Visa Petitions
212(d)(3)(A)(ii) Waiver Decisions
Decisions on Fines and Penalties
Grand Total

FY 2011
30,731
17,096
2,088
9,097
1,305
22
199
924
0
0
8,721
8,701
19
1

FY 2012
28,695
15,856
1,943
8,246
1,594
34
192
830
0
0
5,392
5,349
40
3

FY 2013
29,208
16,493
1,639
7,692
1,816
28
209
1,331
0
0
5,600
5,541
55
4

FY 2014
25,361
13,552
1,516
6,692
2,091
32
163
1,314
0
1
4,398
4,346
49
3

FY 2015
22,832
11,445
1,452
5,908
2,249
51
240
1,487
0
0
6,481
6,436
45
0

39,452

34,087

34,808

29,759

29,313

Table 19 provides a breakdown of the types of cases completed by the BIA
between FY 2011 and FY 2015.
Table 19 - BIA Completions by Type

Total Appeals from IJ Decisions
Case Appeal
Appeal of IJ Motion to Reopen
Motion to Reopen/Reconsider-BIA
Bond Appeal
Bond MTR
Interlocutory Appeal
Federal Court Remand
Continued Detention Review
Zero Bond Appeal
Total Appeals from DHS Decisions
Decisions on Visa Petitions
212(d)(3)(A)(ii) Waiver Decisions
Decisions on Fines and Penalties
Grand Total

FY 2011
30,956
16,629
2,065
9,630
1,241
27
186
1,178
0
0
8,300
8,280
18
2

FY 2012
31,275
17,459
2,040
9,191
1,554
35
225
771
0
0
8,319
8,288
29
2

FY 2013
31,277
17,933
1,839
8,603
1,700
24
194
984
0
0
5,412
5,349
60
3

FY 2014
27,529
15,775
1,691
6,394
1,990
35
169
1,474
0
1
3,294
3,267
25
2

FY 2015
27,603
15,476
1,658
6,427
2,220
47
216
1,559
0
0
6,641
6,573
65
3

39,256

39,594

36,689

30,823

34,244

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

R2

 Board of Immigration Appeals:
Appeals from Immigration Judge Decisions Completed by
Country of Nationality
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) completions of
appeals from immigration judge decisions involved a total of 182 nationalities. Figure
30 provides information on the top 10 nationalities that accounted for 74 percent of
completions in FY 2015.
Figure 30
FY 2015 Appeals from IJ Decisions Completed
by Country of Nationality
All Others
26.46%

Dominican
Republic 1.63%

Mexico 27.89%

Colombia
1.64%
Jamaica 2.00%

El Salvador
10.87%

Haiti 2.13%
China 9.73%
India 2.66%

Guatemala
8.88%

Honduras
6.11%

FY 2015 Appeals from IJ Decisions Completed by
Country of Nationality
Country of Nationality
Mexico
El Salvador
China
Guatemala
Honduras
India
Haiti
Jamaica
Colombia
Dominican Republic
All Others
Total

Completions
7,698
3,001
2,687
2,452
1,686
735
588
551
452
450
7,303
27,603

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

% of Total
27.89%
10.87%
9.73%
8.88%
6.11%
2.66%
2.13%
2.00%
1.64%
1.63%
26.46%
100.00%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

S1

 Table 20 compares the predominant countries for completed immigration judge
appeals for FY 2011 to FY 2015. For the five-year period, nine countries ranked among
the top 10: Mexico, El Salvador, China, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Jamaica,
Colombia, and Dominican Republic.
Table 20 - BIA - Appeals from IJ Decisions Completed by Country of Nationality
Top 25 Nationalities: FY 2011 - FY 2015
Rank

FY 2011

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

1

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

2

China

China

China

China

El Salvador

3

El Salvador

El Salvador

El Salvador

El Salvador

China

4

Guatemala

Guatemala

Guatemala

Guatemala

Guatemala

5

Colombia

Honduras

Honduras

Honduras

Honduras

6

Honduras

Colombia

India

India

India

7

India

India

Colombia

Jamaica

Haiti

8

Jamaica

Jamaica

Jamaica

Colombia

Jamaica

9

Indonesia

Dominican
Republic

Indonesia

Haiti

Colombia

10

Dominican
Republic

Indonesia

Dominican
Republic

Dominican
Republic

Dominican
Republic

11
12

Venezuela
Peru

Haiti
Nigeria

Haiti
Brazil

Brazil
Indonesia

Brazil
Nigeria

13

Haiti

Peru

Pakistan

Nigeria

Ecuador

14

Pakistan

Ecuador

Nigeria

Peru

Philippines

15

Philippines

Philippines

Venezuela

Pakistan

Peru

16

Armenia

Pakistan

Philippines

Ecuador

Indonesia

17

Nigeria

Brazil

Ecuador

Philippines

Nicaragua

18

Albania

Venezuela

Peru

Kenya

Bangladesh

19

Brazil

Albania

Kenya

Venezuela

Pakistan

20

Ecuador

Nicaragua

Nicaragua

Nicaragua

Nepal

21

Nicaragua

Kenya

Armenia

Ghana

Kenya

22

Cuba

Armenia

Nepal

Russia

Armenia

23

Russia

Ghana

Albania

Nepal

Venezuela

24

Kenya

Russia

Russia

Albania

Russia

25

Ghana

Ethiopia

Ghana

Armenia

Ghana

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

S2

 Board of Immigration Appeals:
Appeals from Immigration Judge Decisions Completed by
Representation Status
As shown in Figure 31, the representation rate before the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) decreased from Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2014. There was a one
percent increase from FY 2014 to FY 2015. FY 2012, in which 80 percent of appellate
cases the BIA completed involved a represented alien, had the highest representation
rate of the past five fiscal years. Only appeals from immigration judge decisions are
included in these statistics.
Figure 31

Appeals from IJ Decisions
Percentage of Represented Cases
100%

79%

80%

79%

80%

76%

77%

60%
40%
20%
0%
FY 11

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

Represented Before the BIA
Represented
Unrepresented
24,553
6,403
24,915
6,360
24,756
6,521
20,804
6,725
21,127
6,476

Executive Office for Immigration Review

FY 15

Total
30,956
31,275
31,277
27,529
27,603

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016

T1

 Board of Immigration Appeals:
Case Appeals from Immigration Judge Decisions Completed for
Detained Cases
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) handles detained cases (including aliens
in the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP)) as priority cases.
Figure 32 depicts the number of case appeal decisions between Fiscal Year (FY)
2011 and FY 2015 along with the number of case appeal decisions that involved
detainees. The figures for detained appeal decisions also include IHP cases. The
percent of detained appeals decisions increased by two percent from FY 2011 to FY
2015 while the total number of case appeal decisions decreased by seven percent for
the same time period.
Figure 32
Case Appeals from IJ Decisions
Detained and Total
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15
0

5,000

10,000

Detained Case Appeal Decisions

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

15,000

20,000

Total Case Appeal Decisions

Detained Case Appeals from IJ Decisions (Including IHP)
Detained Case
Total Case Appeal
Percent Detained
Appeal Decisions
Decisions
4,343
16,629
26%
4,805
17,459
28%
4,589
17,933
26%
4,796
15,775
30%
4,398
15,476
28%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

U1

 Table 21 shows a breakdown of total detained case appeals completed by the
BIA, and of those, the number of respondents who were serving sentences at an IHP
location. In FY 2015, seven percent of detained BIA completions involved aliens whose
removal orders had been issued prior to their release from a federal, state, or municipal
corrections facility, down from nine percent in FY 2011. The number of IHP completions
declined by 21 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2015 while the number of detained
completions has increased by one percent for the same time period.
Table 21
Breakdown of BIA Completions of Detained Case Appeals from IJ Decisions
Total
Detained
Completions

IHP
Completions

Percent IHP
Completions

FY 2011

4,343

370

9%

FY 2012

4,805

339

7%

FY 2013

4,589

300

7%

FY 2014

4,796

275

6%

FY 2015

4,398

292

7%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

U2

 Immigration Courts
and
Board of Immigration Appeals:
Immigration Judge Decisions (Initial Case) Appealed
Parties appeal a relatively small percentage of immigration judge decisions to the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Figure 33 compares immigration judge initial case
decisions with the number of case appeals the BIA received for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011
through FY 2015. While the percentage of IJ decisions being appealed has returned to
FY 2011 levels, the number of case appeals received by the BIA has declined by 33
percent over the same period.
Figure 33
Immigration Judge Decisions
(Initial Case) Appealed
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

IJ Decisions

FY 14

FY 15

Case Appeals Received

IJ Decisions (Initial Case) Appealed
IJ Decisions
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

202,716
171,494
143,790
136,652
139,048

Case Appeals
Received
17,096
15,856
16,493
13,552
11,445

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Percent
Appealed
8%
9%
11%
10%
8%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics

FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

April 2016
V1

 Immigration Courts
and
Board of Immigration Appeals:
Pending Caseload
As in any court system, EOIR’s workload depends on the number of matters filed
before it. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines EOIR’s initial
caseload by filing charging documents that allege that an alien has violated immigration
law. The parties determine the nature and number of the cases and the number of
appeals from immigration judge decisions. In addition, changes to the immigration laws
or regulations, and DHS policies and budgeting, have a substantial impact on EOIR’s
workload.
Figure 34 presents information on the pending cases in the immigration courts at
the end of each year Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to FY 2015. The number of pending
immigration court cases has grown by 53 percent since the end of FY 2011, and by six
percent since the end of FY 2014.
Figure 34
Immigration Court Pending Cases by
Fiscal Year End
500,000

Immigration Court Pending
Cases
End Of
Pending
FY 11
298,171
FY 12
327,648
FY 13
356,329
FY 14
429,844
FY 15
457,106

450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Table 22 shows information on the number of pending cases by immigration
court as of the end of FY 2015.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

W1

 Table 22 - Immigration Court Pending Cases as of September 30, 2015
Immigration Court
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CLEVELAND, OHIO
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH DETENTION CENTER, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PEARSALL, TEXAS
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
STEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIA
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Pending Cases as of 9/30/2015
975
22,814
12,554
12,285
185
3,558
12,687
2,343
5,298
19,632
5,950
7,762
8,881
3,878
478
473
5,855
557
1,170
110
732
176
5,197
2,020
259
1,091
33,355
2,460
4,290
800
4,021
50,842
220
9,403
20,541
7,079
62,314
23,666
653
5,311
5,096
1,793
5,726
9,865
3,123
5
1,528
23,131
3,197
31,321
6,590
505
1,151
1,099
126
553
422
457,106

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

W2

 Figure 35 depicts the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) pending caseload.
The BIA’s pending caseload decreased 44 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2015 and has
declined each year since FY 2011.

Figure 35
BIA Pending Cases
By Fiscal Year End
35,000

BIA Pending Cases
End Of
Pending
FY 11
30,329
FY 12
24,822
FY 13
22,941
FY 14
21,877
FY 15
16,945

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

FY 14

FY 15

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

W3

 Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer:
Total Cases Received and Completed
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) is headed by the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, who is responsible for the general supervision of
administrative law judges (ALJs), management of OCAHO and review of ALJ decisions
relating to illegal hiring, employment eligibility verification violations and document fraud.
OCAHO’s ALJs hear cases and adjudicate issues arising under provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) relating to:
•

Knowingly hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens, or the
continued employment of unauthorized aliens, failure to comply with employment
eligibility verification requirements, and/or requiring indemnity bonds from
employees in violation of section 274A of the INA (employer sanctions
provisions);

•

Unfair immigration-related employment practices in violation of section 274B of
the INA (anti-discrimination provisions); and

•

Immigration-related document fraud in violation of section 274C of the INA
(document fraud provisions).

Employer sanctions and document fraud complaints are brought by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. Anti-discrimination complaints may be brought by
the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related
Unfair Employment Practices or private litigants. All final agency decisions may be
appealed to the appropriate federal circuit court of appeals.
In order to more fully and transparently report on its workload and performance,
starting with this yearbook, OCAHO will report on receipts and completions pertaining to
subpoenas, requests for review, and attorney’s fees, in addition to complaints and final
decisions under INA Section 274A, INA Section 274B, and INA Section 274C.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

X1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 Figure 36 displays the number of case receipts and completions for the
preceding five years, while Figure 37 includes receipts and completions for complaints,
subpoenas, requests for review, and attorney’s fees in FY 2015. Completions may
include cases received in a prior fiscal year.
Figure 36

OCAHO Cases
Received and Completed
OCAHO Cases
Receipts Completions
88
82
96
56
84
119
74
75
58
77

140
120

FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
FY 14
FY 15

100
80
60
40
20
0
FY 11

FY 12

FY 13

Receipts

FY 14

FY 15

Completions

Figure 37

FY 2015 OCAHO Workload
90
80
70
60
50
40

Receipts

30

Completions

20
10
0
274A & 274B
Complaints

Subpoenas

Requests for
Review

Attorney's Fees

FY 2015 OCAHO Workload
Receipts
274A and 274B Complaints*
58
Subpoenas
22
Requests for Review
5
Attorney’s Fees
1

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

X2

Completions
77
22
5
0

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
April 2016

 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Disclaimer
This Glossary to the FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) defines terms as they are used in the Yearbook, and is
strictly informational in nature. This Glossary is not intended to be a substitute for a
careful study of the pertinent laws and regulations. This Glossary does not carry the
weight of law or regulation. This Glossary is not intended as legal advice, nor does it
extend or limit the jurisdiction of EOIR as established by law and regulation.

 A
Abandoned
The disposition of an application for relief if an applicant fails to appear for a court
hearing; or fails to provide, without good cause, any required information within the time
frame the immigration court allows.
Accredited Representative
A person who is authorized to represent aliens on behalf of a recognized organization
before the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and/or the Department
of Homeland Security. See Recognized Organization.
Adjustment of Status
Relief from deportation, removal, or exclusion for an alien who is eligible for lawful
permanent resident status based on a Department of Homeland Security approved visa
petition.
Administrative Closure
Temporary removal of a case from an immigration judge’s calendar or from the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ docket.
Administrative Law Judge
A federal agency judge appointed pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3105.
Administrative Law Judges in the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer hear
cases and adjudicate issues arising under the provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) relating to: 1) knowingly hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee
unauthorized aliens, or the continued employment of unauthorized aliens, failure to
comply with employment eligibility verification requirements, and requiring indemnity
bonds from employees in violation of section 274A of the INA (employer sanctions); 2)
unfair immigration-related employment practices in violation of section 274B of the INA;
and 3) immigration-related document fraud in violation of section 274C of the INA.
Affirmative Asylum Application
An asylum application initially filed with the Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services by an alien not in removal proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration Review. See Defensive Asylum Application.
Appeal
A formal request to the Board of Immigration Appeals in which a party seeks the review
of decisions that immigration judges or certain officials of the Department of Homeland
Security have rendered.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
2

 Application for Relief
An alien’s application for relief or protection from removal.
Asylum
Discretionary relief granted to aliens in the United States who establish that they are
refugees, not subject to any prohibitions on eligibility, who cannot return to their country
of nationality or last habitual residence because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.
Asylum Grant
An adjudicator’s finding that allows an alien to remain in the United States as an asylee
and provides certain benefits and derivative asylum status for any eligible spouse or
child.
Asylum Only Case
A case type in which certain aliens are only eligible to seek asylum, withholding of
removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture as a form of
relief or protection. See Withholding Only Case.

B
Board of Immigration Appeals
The appellate component of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that primarily
decides appeals of immigration judge decisions and certain decisions the Department of
Homeland Security renders.
Bond
The amount of money that the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration
judge sets as a condition to release an alien from detention.
Bond Redetermination Hearing
An immigration court hearing on a request to reevaluate a bond the Department of
Homeland Security set. Bond proceedings are separate from other immigration court
proceedings.

C
Cancellation of Removal
Discretionary relief determined during the course of a hearing before an immigration
judge. There are two different forms of cancellation of removal: cancellation of removal
for certain lawful permanent residents who were admitted more than five years ago,
have resided in the United States for seven or more years, and have not been convicted
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
3

 of an aggravated felony; and cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for
certain non-permanent resident aliens who have maintained continuous physical
presence in the United States for 10 years and have met all the other statutory
requirements for such relief.
Case
Before the immigration courts, a proceeding that begins when the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) files a charging document.
Before the Board of Immigration Appeals, appeals from immigration judges’ decisions;
appeals from certain DHS decisions; and motions to reopen, reconsider, or reinstate
proceedings.
Before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, an administrative
proceeding that begins when DHS, the Office of Special Counsel for ImmigrationRelated Unfair Employment Practices, or certain private individuals or entities file a
complaint, subpoena request, motion for attorney’s fees or request for review.
Change of Venue
Moving of a case from one immigration court to another upon a party’s motion.
Claimed Status Review
A case type in which aliens in expedited removal proceedings seek an immigration
judge’s review of their claim under oath that they are a U.S. citizen; have been lawfully
admitted for permanent residence; have been admitted as a refugee; or have been
granted asylum, after the Department of Homeland Security determines that they have
not proven such claim.
Completions
Before the immigration courts, an immigration judge’s determinations. Such
determinations are in one of four categories: 1) initial cases; 2) subsequent cases; 3)
bonds; and 4) motions that an immigration judge did not grant. See Initial Case;
Subsequent Case.
Before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), when the BIA renders a decision in a
case.
Before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, an Administrative Law
Judge’s final decision on the merits of a case, a subpoena or a motion for attorney’s
fees; or the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision on a request for review.
Continuance
The adjournment of a case until a different day or time.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
4

 Continued Detention Review
A case type established in response to the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Zadvydas v. Davis, in which an immigration judge decides whether an alien should
remain in custody.
Convention Against Torture (CAT)
An international human rights agreement the United Nations drafted to combat torture
around the world. The United States signed the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in
1988, and ratified it in 1994, issuing implementing regulations in 1999 providing for
withholding and deferral of removal protections under CAT. See Deferral of Removal;
Withholding of Removal; Withholding Only Case.
Credible Fear Review
A case type in which an immigration judge reviews a Department of Homeland Security
asylum officer’s decision that an alien subject to removal under INA § 235(a)(2) or (b)(1)
failed to establish their claim of fear of persecution or torture.
Custody Status
Whether or not an alien is detained. This Yearbook describes four custody categories:
1) detained; 2) never detained; 3) released; and 4) non-detained. See Detained; Never
Detained; Released.

D
Decision
A determination by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, the Board of Immigration
Appeals, or the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.
Defensive Asylum Application
An asylum application initially filed with an immigration court after an alien has been put
into removal proceedings. See Affirmative Asylum Application.
Deferral of Removal
The Department of Homeland Security’s postponement of an alien’s removal to the
country in which an immigration judge has determined the alien, who is ineligible for any
other forms of relief or protection, is likely to be tortured. See Withholding of Removal.
Denial
An immigration judge’s decision not to grant a party’s motion or an alien’s application for
relief.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
5

 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Twenty-two different federal departments and agencies combined into a unified,
integrated cabinet agency following the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of
2002. Public Law 107-296.
Deportation Case
A case type initiated when the former Immigration and Naturalization Service filed an
Order to Show Cause with an immigration court before April 1, 1997. See Exclusion
Case; Removal Case.
Detained
Custody status of those aliens under the custodial supervision of the Department of
Homeland Security or other entities. See Custody Status.
Disposition
An immigration judge’s ruling on an alien’s removability.

E
Exclusion Case
A case type involving a person who, before April 1, 1997, tried to enter the United
States but was stopped at the port of entry because the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service found the person to be inadmissible. See Deportation Case;
Removal Case.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, the Department of Justice
component responsible for interpreting and administering federal immigration laws by
conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative
hearings.

F
Failure to Prosecute
A situation in which the Department of Homeland Security has not filed a charging
document with the immigration court by the time of the first hearing.
Fiscal Year
The 12-month accounting period for the federal government that begins on October 1
and ends on September 30.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
6

 G
Grant
An immigration judge’s decision to approve a party’s motion or an alien’s application for
relief.

I
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
Public Law Number 104-208.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
Public Law Number 82-414.
Immigration Court
A tribunal within the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Office of the Chief
Immigration Judge that conducts immigration proceedings.
Immigration Judge
An attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as an administrative judge within the
Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge.
In Absentia Order
An order issued when an immigration judge determines that a Notice to Appear in court
comports with the law, the alien is removable, received notice of his or her hearing, and
fails to appear. This term derives from the Latin phrase meaning “in the absence of.”
Initial Case
The proceeding that begins when the Department of Homeland Security files a charging
document with an immigration court and ends when an immigration judge renders a
determination. See Subsequent Case.
Institutional Hearing Program (IHP)
A cooperative effort between the Executive Office for Immigration Review; the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and various federal, state, and municipal
corrections agencies, to complete cases for incarcerated criminal aliens serving federal
or state sentences prior to their release from prison or jail so DHS can remove the
aliens with final removal orders upon their release.
Interlocutory Appeal
A party’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a preliminary ruling of an
immigration judge before an immigration judge renders a final decision in the case.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
7

 L
Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)
An alien who has been conferred permanent resident status, which enables the alien to
remain in the United States indefinitely with certain rights and benefits.

M
Matters Completed
Determinations immigration judges render on: initial cases; subsequent cases; bond
redeterminations; and motions to reopen, reconsider, or recalendar that are not granted.
Matters Received
The Department of Homeland Security’s filing of charging documents with an
immigration court; parties’ requests that an immigration judge make bond
redeterminations; or parties’ requests that an immigration judge rule on motions to
reopen, reconsider, or recalendar.
Motion
A formal request from a party to an EOIR adjudication body to carry out an action or
make a decision.
Motion to Recalendar
A request in which a party seeks to have their case returned to an active adjudications
docket.
Motion to Reconsider
A request in which a party seeks to have a prior decision re-examined based on a
possible error in law or fact, or a change in the law that affects the prior decision.
Motion to Reopen
A request in which a party seeks to have a prior, completed case reexamined in order to
consider new facts or evidence in the case.

N
Nationality
The status of owing permanent allegiance to a particular nation by origin, birth, or
naturalization.
Never Detained
Custody status of those aliens of whom the Executive Office for Immigration Review has
no record of the Department of Homeland Security’s or other entities’ custodial
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
8

 supervision. See Custody Status.
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA)
Public Law Number 105-100.
Non-detained
The status of an alien in immigration proceedings who is not in the Department of
Homeland Security’s or other entities’ custody (sum of never detained and released).
See Custody Status.
Notice to Appear (NTA)
The document (Form I-862) the Department of Homeland Security uses to charge a
person with being removable from the United States.
Notice of Intent To Rescind
A document in which the Department of Homeland Security notifies an individual that it
intends to revoke permanent resident status. See Rescission Case.

O
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO)
The adjudicating component of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that
conducts administrative hearings involving allegations of: 1) knowingly hiring, recruiting
or referring for a fee unauthorized aliens, or the continued employment of unauthorized
aliens, failure to comply with employment eligibility verification requirements, and
requiring indemnity bonds from employees in violation of section 274A of the INA
(employer sanctions); 2) unfair immigration-related employment practices in violation of
section 274B of the INA; and 3) immigration-related document fraud in violation of
section 274C of the INA.
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ)
The adjudicating component of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that
includes the immigration courts and the immigration judges.
Other
A decision type that indicates that an immigration judge’s decision and the facts of the
case do not fall within the list of codes provided in the Executive Office for Immigration
Review’s computerized case management database.
Other Completion
In the immigration court, the conclusion of a case with one of the following: 1)
administrative closure; 2) failure to prosecute; 3) other administrative completion; or 4)
temporary protected status.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
9

 Other Administrative Completion
In the immigration court, an action, not based on the merits, that results in the
conclusion of a case.

P
Pro Bono
A Latin phrase meaning “for the public good.” In a legal context, legal representation
performed free of charge.
Pro Se
A Latin phrase meaning “for oneself.” In a legal context, the party represents him or
herself in legal proceedings without an attorney or representative.
Proceeding
The legal process conducted before the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration
Appeals, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.

R
Reasonable Fear Review
A case type in which an immigration judge reviews a Department of Homeland Security
asylum officer’s decision that the alien who is subject to removal under INA §§ 238(b) or
241(a)(5) has not established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture.
Receipts
The number of administrative filings that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or
other entities file with the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
For the immigration courts, receipts include new charging documents that DHS files;
bond redetermination requests; and motions to reopen, reconsider, and recalendar.
For the Board of Immigration Appeals, receipts include appeals from immigration judge
decisions; federal court remands; motions to reopen, reconsider, and recalendar; and
certain appeals of DHS decisions.
For the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, receipts represent the number
of new complaints, subpoena requests, motions for attorney’s fees, and requests for
review.
Recognized Organization

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
10

 A non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization formally
recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals as such under the provisions of 8
C.F.R. section 292.2. See Accredited Representative.
Released
Custody status of those aliens who are no longer detained. See Custody Status.
Relief
An immigration judge’s decision to grant relief or protection from removal to an
otherwise removable alien.
Remand
An action an appellate body takes that sends a case back to a lower court for further
proceedings.
Removal Case
A case type that begins when the Department of Homeland Security files a charging
document with an immigration court.
Represented
The status of an alien who has an attorney or accredited representative to act as their
agent in proceedings before the immigration courts or the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Request for Review
In INA section 274A cases before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer,
a formal request by a party for the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to review a
decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge.
Rescission Case
A case type that is related to revoking an alien’s lawful permanent resident status. See
Notice of Intent to Rescind.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
11

 S
Subsequent Case
The proceeding that begins when: 1) the immigration judge grants a motion to reopen,
reconsider, or recalendar; or 2) the Board of Immigration Appeals issues a decision to
remand and ends when the immigration judge renders a determination. See Initial
Case.
Suspension of Deportation
Discretionary relief for certain aliens in deportation proceedings who maintained
continuous physical presence in the United States for seven years and met the other
statutory requirements for such relief. See Cancellation of Removal; Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).

T
Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
A temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country (or to persons
without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country) that the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated for protection
because the country is experiencing an ongoing armed conflict, an environmental
disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent a safe return.
Transfer
The Department of Homeland Security’s moving of detained aliens between detention
facilities or the administrative transfer of an alien’s case from one hearing location to
another.
Termination
A type of decision by an immigration judge that dismisses the case related to a
particular charging document. The alien is not subject to removal relating to the
dismissed charging document.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
12

 U
Unrepresented
The status of an alien who does not have an attorney or accredited representative to act
as their agent in proceedings before the immigration courts or the Board of Immigration
Appeals. See Pro Se.

V
Voluntary Departure
An order that permits aliens, who are otherwise removable, to depart from the country at
their own expense within a designated amount of time in order to avoid a final order of
removal.

W
Withdrawal of an Application for Relief
An alien’s request to remove an application for relief from the immigration judge’s
consideration prior to the immigration judge’s decision in the alien’s case.
Withholding of Removal
A form of protection from being removed from the United States.
Withholding Only Case
A case type in which an alien, who is not entitled to removal proceedings, is eligible only
to apply for withholding of removal. See Asylum Only Case.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics
Glossary of Terms
April 2016
13