Guide · the data behind the lottery
The Immigration Judge Lottery
The same asylum case can win before one judge and lose before another down the hall. Here is why, and what the DOJ EOIR data shows.
Data updated 2026-06-21
- 97.2%
- Most permissive judge
- 0.0%
- Strictest judge
- 48.2%
- National average
What the data shows
In the EOIR records, asylum grant rates run from 97.2% for the most permissive judge (JB, New York - Federal Plaza Immigration Court) down to 0.0% for the strictest (JGC, Houston - S. Gessner Road Immigration Court) - among judges with at least 25 merits decisions.
The national average is just one number; the spread beneath it is the real story. Explore every judge on the rankings page.
What the Research Shows
The variation in immigration judge decision-making has been documented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), academic researchers at institutions including Syracuse University's TRAC program, and investigative journalists. The findings are consistent: judges hearing similar types of cases at the same court can have dramatically different grant rates.
For example, at a single immigration court, one judge might grant asylum in 60% of cases from a particular country while a colleague grants asylum to respondents from the same country at a rate of 10%. These differences persist even after controlling for nationality, case type, representation status, and other observable variables.
Why This Happens
Immigration judges exercise significant discretion in evaluating asylum claims, cancellation of removal applications, and other forms of relief. Key areas of discretion include credibility determinations (whether to believe the respondent's testimony), assessment of country conditions evidence, interpretation of legal standards like "particular social group," and weight given to corroborating evidence.
Unlike federal appellate courts, immigration courts do not operate under a strict system of binding precedent. While Board of Immigration Appeals decisions provide some guidance, individual judges retain significant latitude in how they apply legal standards to the facts of each case. This structural feature of the system enables wide variation in decision-making.
What PlainImmigration Data Reveals
According to EOIR, its underlying FOIA release covers millions of cases decided since 2001 across roughly 70 immigration courts; see our methodology for the full source detail. PlainImmigration shows judge-level grant rates calculated from EOIR case data. You can compare judges within the same court to see the range of outcomes, examine how a judge's grant rate compares to the national average, and track whether grant rates have changed over time. This data is useful for researchers studying the system, journalists covering immigration policy, and attorneys preparing for hearings before specific judges.
It is important to understand that raw grant rates do not tell the complete story. A judge with a low grant rate may hear a disproportionate number of cases that are weak on the merits. A judge with a high grant rate may hear cases from nationalities with stronger claims. The value of the data is in comparing judges within the same court who are hearing similar case mixes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the judge lottery effect?
The judge lottery effect refers to the significant variation in case outcomes based on which immigration judge is assigned to hear a case. Research by the Government Accountability Office and academic institutions has found that judges hearing similar cases at the same court can have grant rate differences of 50 percentage points or more. Case assignment is essentially random, making the outcome partly dependent on which judge happens to be available.
Can you choose your immigration judge?
No. Immigration judges are assigned to cases by the court, and respondents cannot select or request a specific judge. In some courts, cases are assigned randomly; in others, assignment may be based on docket availability, case type, or other administrative factors. The inability to choose a judge is one reason the variation in grant rates raises fairness concerns.
Why do judges have such different grant rates?
Multiple factors contribute: different interpretations of asylum law and credibility standards, different judicial philosophies on burden of proof, different attitudes toward country conditions evidence, the mix of case types on a judge's docket, and the lack of binding precedent across individual judges. Unlike federal courts, immigration courts do not operate under stare decisis, meaning judges are not bound by each other's decisions on similar facts.
Related Resources
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 immigration court case data, no figure is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error.