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 October 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

1,162

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

912

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

250

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

36%

328 granted of 907 decided

Granted with counsel

58%

88 granted of 153 decided

Granted self-represented

31%

231 granted of 741 decided

Range across judges

5 to 62%

grant rate across the 27 busiest judges, 2008 to 2008

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 33% granted of 448 decided

Decisions span 2008 to 2008

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.

36% granted overall (328 of 907). Yearly rates ranged 36 to 36% where the yearly sample is large enough.

DecisionsGrant rate05001,0000%25%50%75%100%20082008: 912 decisions · 36% granted · select to filter to 2008

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.

† 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. ties77
Rehabilitation evidence18
Acknowledgment & remorse16
Debt paid in full16
Passage of time6
Documented abstinence period5
No subsequent offenses5
Credible explanation of omission4
Willingness to renounce foreign citizenship3
Promptly corrected the falsification2
Severed foreign contact2
Foreign passport expired1
Signed intent with revocation clause1
Substance treatment completed1
U.S. military service1

Outcomes by representation

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

Represented by a lawyer

58% granted · 88 granted · 65 denied

Self-represented

31% granted · 231 granted · 510 denied

Difference

1.8 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: 2008 to 2008. 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 236 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

  • affirmed · 191 of 236 (81%)
  • reversed · 31 of 236 (13%)
  • remanded · 14 of 236 (6%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 13% 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
    190
    Affirmed
    182 (96%)
    Reversed
    1 (1%)
    Remanded
    7 (4%)
  • The Government (Department Counsel)

    Appeals
    46
    Affirmed
    9 (20%)
    Reversed
    30 (65%)
    Remanded
    7 (15%)

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 conclusion41
Ignored material evidence31
Misapplied mitigation3
Second-guessed credibility without a basis2
Other1

Errors alleged on appeal

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

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law178
The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence99
Mitigation wrongly applied26
No specific harmful error alleged25
Erroneous finding of fact22
Whole-person analysis15
Due process or fairness10
Credibility determination4
Legal error3
New evidence offered, which the Board cannot accept2

Error found, but harmless

17%

of affirmances · 32 of 191

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

Most-cited authorities

  • Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.133
  • Department of the Navy v. Egan127
  • Dorfmont v. Brown41
  • Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n34
  • ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 227
  • ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 1221
  • ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 720
  • ISCR Case No. 03-2286118
Appeal Board judges by number of appeals

Appeals are decided by three-member panels, so an outcome belongs to the panel and not to any single judge. There is no per-judge rate for that reason.

William S. Fields · 200 appealsJames E. Moody · 146 appealsJean E. Smallin · 131 appealsMichael Y. Ra'anan · 95 appealsMichael D. Hipple · 74 appealsJeffrey D. Billett · 57 appeals

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.