Skip to content
CASE

Statistics

Outcome patterns across decided public DOHA cases. The filters below narrow the view by concern, time period, representation, and judge. Descriptive statistics, not predictions. Data through September 2026.

Years
to
Concern
Representation
Judge: Richard A. Cefola · removeClear all

Reference dates for comparisons: the current adjudicative guidelines took effect in June 2017, and updated marijuana guidance was issued in December 2021.

Filtered viewYears: 1997 to 1997 · removeJudge: Richard A. Cefola · removeClear all

Key findings

Cases in view

15

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

15

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

0

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

27%

4 granted of 15 decided

Grant rates over time

Granted with counsel

67%

2 granted of 3 decided

Outcomes by representation

Granted self-represented

17%

2 granted of 12 decided

Outcomes by representation

Range across judges

17 to 35%

grant rate across the 6 busiest judges, 1997 to 1997

Outcomes by judge

Most common concern

Guideline H

Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse · 18% granted of 11 decided

Outcomes by concern

Decisions span 1997 to 1997

View these cases

Using this page: the filters above narrow every section, selecting a chart row opens the cases underneath it, and each section downloads as a CSV file.

Grant rates over time

How often clearances were granted, by year.

27% granted overall (4 of 15).

DecisionsGrant rate0510150%25%50%75%100%19971997: 15 decisions · select to filter to 1997

Swipe the chart for earlier years. Select any year to filter the page to it.

How to read this chart

Grey bars count the decisions published in each year, read against the left axis. The blue line is the grant rate for that year, read against the right axis, and it is drawn only for years with 20 or more decided cases. The shaded band over 1999 and 2000 marks two years when very few decisions were published: DOHA published few decisions online before 2002, and almost none survive for those two years. The dashed lines mark the June 2017 adjudicative guidelines and the December 2021 marijuana guidance taking effect. They do not claim that either change caused what the chart shows.

Outcomes by concern

How each type of concern was resolved.

Granted against denied for each concern, counted per concern: a case raising more than one concern appears under each of them, so these rows add up to more than the number of cases in this view. Case-level totals are in the section above. Open a row for the specific issues inside it.
  • H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

    18% granted  · 2 granted · 9 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • F · Financial Considerations

    67% granted  · 2 granted · 1 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • G · Alcohol Consumption

    33% granted  · 1 granted · 2 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • J · Criminal Conduct

    33% granted  · 1 granted · 2 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • E · Personal Conduct

    0% granted  · 0 granted · 2 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

† marks fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable. A case can raise several concerns, so the rows overlap.

Mitigations judges credited most

How often each mitigation was expressly accepted by the judge, not merely claimed, across the cases in this view. This is a count of how often something was credited, so the bars are neutral: they carry no outcome.

No credited mitigations in this view.

Outcomes by representation

Whether represented and self-represented applicants were granted at different rates.

Represented by a lawyer

67% granted  · 2 granted · 1 denied

Self-represented

17% granted  · 2 granted · 10 denied

Difference

4.0 times

the grant rate with a lawyer

An association, not proof of cause: the groups being compared differ in many ways. Select a row to filter the page.

Outcomes by judge

How the cases each judge decided were resolved.

Window: 1997 to 1997. Adjust the time range above to change it.

† marks judges with fewer than 20 decided cases in this window. Judges hear different mixes of cases, so these rates describe the decided record, not the judges.

Appeal outcomes

How appealed decisions were treated by the Appeal Board.

No appeal decisions match this selection.

Questions about these statistics

The statistics assistant is part of Professional.

The statistics on this page are free, with or without a subscription.

It answers questions about the figures on this page, inside the filters you have set, with the denominator behind every number.

Professional plan details

Publications and measured series

Ongoing analyses computed from the decided record, each on its own page, with its method and the counts behind every rate.

Granted ÷ decided; † marks groups under 20 cases. Full methodology

Reading the statistics

  • 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.
  • Hovering any rate shows its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
  • Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA ISCR decisions, never predictions or assessments of any pending case.

Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.