Asylum Grant Rate
47.1% of merits decisions
Asylum cases decided at Santa Ana Immigration Court
Immigration court · Santa Ana, CA
47.1% asylum grant rate across 14,354 merits decisions (FY2015–2025) - roughly in line with the 48.2% national average.
Data updated 2026-06-21
The verdict
The Santa Ana Immigration Court granted asylum in 47.1% of the 14,354 cases it decided on the merits - roughly in line with the 48.2% national rate.
The Santa Ana Immigration Court, based in Santa Ana, CA, decided 14,354 asylum cases on the merits between FY2015 and FY2025 - out of 125,466 total proceedings of all case types it handled. Of those asylum decisions, 6,754 were granted (47.1%) and 7,600 were denied (52.9%). The court has 28 immigration judges with enough asylum decisions to report, whose individual grant rates shape the court-wide average shown above.
Between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2025, the grant rate at Santa Ana Immigration Court rose by 40.3 percentage points, moving from 0.0% to 40.3%. That window spans 7 fiscal years of reported data, covering shifts in bench composition, policy guidance, and nationality mix. The year-by-year table lower on this page shows the underlying annual case volume for every year in the series.
Outcomes vary substantially judge-to-judge. Judge JER decided the most asylum cases here - 962 merits decisions (31.1% grant rate). The spread between the highest-grant and lowest-grant judges at this court is 52.1 percentage points - VAL at 83.2% versus JER at 31.1%. These differences reflect case mix, nationality assignments, and docket type rather than any single factor, and they are why EOIR cautions readers against treating any judge's rate as predictive of an individual case.
Asylum Grant Rate
47.1% of merits decisions
Asylum cases decided at Santa Ana Immigration Court
Pending Cases
20,922
Open proceedings (all case types)
Asylum Decisions
14,354
Merits decisions, FY2015–2025
Asylum grant rate by fiscal year at Santa Ana Immigration Court.
| Fiscal year | Decisions | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|
| FY2015 | 1 | 0.0% |
| FY2016 | 1 | 0.0% |
| FY2021 | 1 | 100.0% |
| FY2022 | 662 | 61.8% |
| FY2023 | 2,584 | 61.6% |
| FY2024 | 3,713 | 47.8% |
| FY2025 | 7,392 | 40.3% |
28 judges with enough asylum decisions to report. Grant rates run from 83.2% (143 decisions) down to 31.1% (962 decisions) - a 52.1-point spread on the same bench. Rates based on smaller decision counts carry more statistical noise.
Judge names below are the anonymized judge codes EOIR assigns in its public case-data release, not verified public identities. EOIR does not publish immigration judges' full names in this dataset. See our methodology for detail.
| # | Judge | Decisions | Asylum grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Judge VAL | 143 | |
| 2 | Judge WMM | 261 | |
| 3 | Judge NBW | 401 | |
| 4 | Judge DKM | 36 | |
| 5 | Judge JWO | 312 | |
| 6 | Judge JOH | 710 | |
| 7 | Judge AMF | 530 | |
| 8 | Judge TTI | 498 | |
| 9 | Judge HH | 702 | |
| 10 | Judge AFN | 841 | |
| 11 | Judge KNH | 335 | |
| 12 | Judge LCH | 581 | |
| 13 | Judge ABK | 698 | |
| 14 | Judge LJF | 812 | |
| 15 | Judge CB1 | 141 | |
| 16 | Judge ROA | 604 | |
| 17 | Judge JEN | 653 | |
| 18 | Judge HRL | 415 | |
| 19 | Judge GSS | 549 | |
| 20 | Judge JNW | 343 | |
| 21 | Judge MWC | 555 | |
| 22 | Judge PIE | 532 | |
| 23 | Judge WRL | 620 | |
| 24 | Judge ING | 819 | |
| 25 | Judge LWP | 176 | |
| 26 | Judge AEN | 586 | |
| 27 | Judge CDM | 473 | |
| 28 | Judge JER | 962 | |
Data from the DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) via FOIA bulk case data. Statistical information only, not legal advice.
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Source: U.S. EOIR, Immigration Court Statistics Immigration court outcomes by court and case type · 2025
Every figure on PlainImmigration is rendered directly from federal immigration court records, no number is typed in by an editor. This page draws directly on DOJ EOIR case-level records, no figure is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error.