Skip to content

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

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

Key findings

Cases in view

97

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

89

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

8

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

57%

51 granted of 89 decided

Granted with counsel

59%

17 granted of 29 decided

Granted self-represented

57%

34 granted of 60 decided

Most common concern

Guideline E

Personal Conduct · 18% granted of 195 decided

Decisions span 2002 to 2002

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.

57% granted overall (51 of 89). Yearly rates ranged 57 to 57% where the yearly sample is large enough.

DecisionsGrant rate0501000%25%50%75%100%20022002: 89 decisions · 57% granted · select to filter to 2002

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. The concern filter narrows the other sections. In this section it highlights the row instead, so that concerns stay comparable with each other.

† 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.

Deep U.S. ties21
Rehabilitation evidence4
Willingness to renounce foreign citizenship4
Severed foreign contact3

Outcomes by representation

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

Represented by a lawyer

59% granted · 17 granted · 12 denied

Self-represented

57% granted · 34 granted · 26 denied

Difference

1.0 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: 2002 to 2002. 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.

The Appeal Board reviews the specific errors a party claims. It can affirm a decision, leaving it in place; reverse it, replacing the outcome; or remand it, sending it back to the judge. It does not rehear the case. Based on 8 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

  • affirmed · 6 of 8 (75%)
  • reversed · 2 of 8 (25%)
  • remanded · 0 of 8 (0%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 25% of the decisions brought to it.

Appeals by party, with outcomes

Applicants appeal denials; the Government appeals grants it disagrees with. Whether an outcome helped the applicant therefore depends on who appealed.

  • The applicant

    Appeals
    6
    Affirmed
    6 (100%)
    Reversed
    0 (0%)
    Remanded
    0 (0%)
  • The Government (Department Counsel)

    Appeals
    2
    Affirmed
    0 (0%)
    Reversed
    2 (100%)
    Remanded
    0 (0%)

Grounds for reversal or remand

The grounds the Board gave. A case can have more than one.

No rational connection from the facts to the conclusion2
Misapplied mitigation1
Other1

Errors alleged on appeal

The errors the parties raised, across every appeal in this selection.

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law11
No specific harmful error alleged2
Legal error1

Error found, but harmless

0%

of affirmances · 0 of 6

The Board agreed the judge erred but left the outcome in place, because the error did not change the result.

Most-cited authorities

  • ISCR Case No. 99-0532 (February 276
  • ISCR Case No. 99-0519 (February 236
  • ISCR Case No. 99-0424 (February 86
  • ISCR Case No. 00-0050 (July 236
  • ISCR Case No. 99-0205 (October 195
  • ISCR Case No. 99-0511 (December 193
  • ISCR Case No. 00-0489 (January 103
  • ISCR Case No. 00-0009 (September 262

A structured reading of the decided public Appeal Board record. The outcome the Board stated matched our independent read in 100% of cases.

Browse appeal decisions

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.