Outcome patterns across decided public DOHA cases. The filters below narrow the view by concern, time period, representation, judge, and appeals. Descriptive statistics, not predictions. Data through July 2026.
Accepts questions about the statistics on this page; answers are descriptive and confined to the current filters.
A Professional feature
The statistics on this page are available without a subscription. The assistant that answers questions about them is part of Professional. The blurred text behind this notice is an example answer with illustrative numbers, not live data.
Professional plan detailsReference dates for comparisons: the current adjudicative guidelines took effect in June 2017; updated marijuana guidance issued in December 2021.
Using this page: filters above narrow every section; selecting a chart row opens its underlying cases; each section downloads as CSV.
How often clearances were granted, by year.
21% granted overall (9 of 42). Yearly rates ranged 21–21% where yearly samples are large enough.
Tap any year to filter the page to it.
Bars: hearing decisions per year. Line: grant rate, drawn only for years with 20or more decided cases. The dashed lines mark the 2017 guidelines and the December 2021 marijuana guidance taking effect; they do not claim a policy caused a change. Early years contain few cases because the public archive is thin for those years: DOHA published few decisions online before 2002, and almost none survive for 1999–2000.
How each type of concern was resolved.
Granted vs denied for each concern, counted per concern: a case with 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 trend 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 so that concerns remain comparable.
Whether represented and self-represented applicants were granted at different rates.
| Representation | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-represented (no lawyer) | 31 | 3 | 28 | 10% |
| Represented by a lawyer † | 11 | 6 | 5 | 55% |
An association, not proof the lawyer caused it: the two groups differ in many ways. Click a row to filter the page.
How individual judges’ decided cases were resolved.
Window: 2002–2002. Adjust the time range above to change it.
| Administrative Judge | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barry M. Sax † | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20% |
| Darlene Lokey Anderson † | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0% |
| Elizabeth M. Matchinski † | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0% |
| John R. Erck † | 5 | 3 | 2 | 60% |
| Roger C. Wesley † | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40% |
| James A. Young † | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0% |
| Richard A. Cefola † | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0% |
| Joseph Testan † | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% |
| John Grattan Metz, Jr. † | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% |
| Claude R. Heiny II † | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50% |
| Wilford H. Ross † | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0% |
| Kathryn Moen Braeman † | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0% |
† means fewer than 20 decided cases, too few to be reliable. Click a row to filter the whole page to that judge.
How appealed decisions were treated by the Appeal Board.
No appeal decisions match this selection.
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 →
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
† = fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable. A case can raise several concerns, so rows overlap.
How often each mitigation was expressly accepted by the judge (not merely claimed) across the cases in view.