Outcome patterns across decided public DOHA cases. Use the filters to explore concerns, time periods, representation, judges, and appeals. Descriptive statistics, not predictions. Data through June 2026.
Ask follow-up questions about the statistics on this page and get grounded, descriptive answers within your current filters.
A Professional feature
The statistics on this page stay free for everyone. 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.
See ProfessionalReference dates for comparisons: the current adjudicative guidelines took effect in June 2017; updated marijuana guidance issued in December 2021.
How to use this page: filter by concern, representation, or years above · click a chart row to see its underlying cases · every section downloads as CSV · all figures are descriptive counts of decided cases, never a prediction.
38% granted overall (466 of 1,229). Yearly rates ranged 38–38% where samples are solid.
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 are thin because the public archive is: DOHA published few decisions online before 2002, and almost none survive for 1999–2000.
Granted vs denied for each concern. Open a row for the specific issues inside it.
| Representation | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-represented (no lawyer) | 925 | 307 | 618 | 33% |
| Represented by a lawyer | 304 | 159 | 145 | 52% |
An association, not proof the lawyer caused it: the two groups differ in many ways. Click a row to filter the page.
Window: 2005–2005. Adjust the time range above to change it.
| Administrative Judge | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas M. Crean | 76 | 26 | 50 | 34% |
| Carol G. Ricciardello | 73 | 16 | 57 | 22% |
| Henry Lazzaro | 72 | 32 | 40 | 44% |
| James A. Young | 70 | 16 | 54 | 23% |
| Claude R. Heiny II | 55 | 26 | 29 | 47% |
| Barry M. Sax | 55 | 26 | 29 | 47% |
| Charles D. Ablard | 54 | 24 | 30 | 44% |
| Matthew E. Malone | 53 | 17 | 36 | 32% |
| Elizabeth M. Matchinski | 53 | 20 | 33 | 38% |
| Michael J. Breslin | 46 | 23 | 23 | 50% |
| Kathryn Moen Braeman | 43 | 25 | 18 | 58% |
| Joseph Testan | 43 | 15 | 28 | 35% |
| Roger C. Wesley | 39 | 11 | 28 | 28% |
| John Grattan Metz, Jr. | 38 | 12 | 26 | 32% |
| Joan Caton Anthony | 37 | 3 | 34 | 8% |
† means fewer than 20 decided cases, too few to trust the percentage. Click a row to filter the whole page to that judge.
No appeal decisions match this selection.
Descriptive counts over decided public DOHA ISCR decisions, never a prediction · Granted ÷ decided; † marks groups under 20 cases · data through June 2026 · 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.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
† = fewer than 20 cases, too few to trust. 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.