What actually happened in decided public DOHA cases — counts of the past, not a prediction or assessment of any future or pending case.
Hearing decisions per year, and the share granted where the yearly sample is solid.
Across the hearing decisions in view, judges granted 34% (8,957 granted, 17,006 denied); in years with a solid sample the rate ran 22%–42%.
Bars: hearing decisions per year. Line: grant rate, drawn only for years with at least 20decided cases (a few very thin years around 1999–2000 are volume-only). The dashed markers show when policies took effect — they don’t claim a policy caused a change.
Of decided cases raising each security concern, the share granted vs denied. Open a row for the specific issues inside it.
Grant rate for applicants with a lawyer vs. those who represented themselves (hearing decisions in view).
This is an association, not proof a lawyer caused the difference — represented and self-represented applicants differ in many other ways. Click a row to filter the page.
Judges compared over 2017–2026 (the last 10 years, so different eras don’t read as different judges)— set a custom time range above to change the window. “Cases” counts every hearing the judge decided; granted + denied can be fewer where the record carries no outcome label.
An appeal is error review — the Appeal Board checks the specific mistake a party says the judge made, then affirms (decision stands), reverses (overturned) or remands (sent back). Based on 3,368 appeal decisions with a verified outcome.
Most appeals change nothing: the Board overturned about 7% of the decisions brought to it.
Applicants appeal denials; the Government appeals grants it disagrees with. Whether an outcome helped the applicant depends on who appealed.
Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA Industrial Security Clearance Review (ISCR) decisions — what judges already decided. They are not predictions or assessments of any future or pending case.
Granted = access granted or continued; Denied = denied or revoked. Grant rate = granted ÷ (granted + denied). † marks figures based on fewer than 20 cases — too few to be reliable. Hover any rate for its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
Hearing vs. appeal is read from each decision’s own text (the source label was unreliable). Appeals — mostly affirmed denials — are reported only in the appeals section and never mixed into a hearing grant rate. Charts and tables all honor the filter bar except the appeals section, which honors the year and concern filters only.
Descriptive of decided public DOHA ISCR decisions · data through March 2026.
† means fewer than 20 cases — too few to trust the percentage. A case can raise more than one concern, so it may be counted under several rows.
How often each mitigation was expressly accepted by the judge (not merely claimed) across the cases in view.
| Administrative Judge | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carol G. Ricciardello | 460 | 87 | 373 | 19% |
| LeRoy F. Foreman | 436 | 119 | 316 | 27% |
| Mark W. Harvey | 430 | 101 | 329 | 23% |
| Edward W. Loughran | 414 | 168 | 246 | 41% |
| Richard A. Cefola | 375 | 131 | 244 | 35% |
| Darlene Lokey Anderson | 370 | 82 | 288 | 22% |
| Robert E. Coacher | 347 | 102 | 245 | 29% |
| Roger C. Wesley | 305 | 78 | 227 | 26% |
| Braden M. Murphy | 266 | 84 | 182 | 32% |
| Candace Le'i Garcia | 263 | 106 | 157 | 40% |
| Robert Robinson Gales | 254 | 77 | 177 | 30% |
| Elizabeth M. Matchinski | 242 | 60 | 182 | 25% |
| Marc E. Curry | 239 | 85 | 154 | 36% |
| Pamela C. Benson | 231 | 61 | 170 | 26% |
| Noreen A. Lynch | 231 | 79 | 152 | 34% |
† means fewer than 20 decided cases — too few to trust the percentage. Click a row to filter the whole page to that judge.
| Appealed by | Appeals | Affirmed | Reversed | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicant | 3,055 | 2900 (95%) | 12 (0%) | 143 (5%) |
| Government (Dept. Counsel) | 303 | 47 (16%) | 211 (70%) | 45 (15%) |
| Both parties † | 10 | 9 (90%) | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) |
† means fewer than 20 appeals — too few to trust the percentages.
The grounds the Board gave (a case can have more than one).
The error(s) parties raised, across all appeals in scope.
Affirmances where the Board agreed the judge erred — but it didn’t change the result.
The past rulings the Board leans on.
Appeals are decided by three-member panels, so outcomes belong to the panel — not to any single judge. That’s why there is no per-judge rate here.
Structured reading of the decided public Appeal Board record (the Board’s stated outcome matched our independent read in 100% of cases).
Browse appeal decisions →