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: Charles D. Ablard · 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: 2009 to 2009 · removeJudge: Charles D. Ablard · removeClear all

Key findings

Cases in view

16

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

16

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

0

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

63%

10 granted of 16 decided

Grant rates over time

Granted with counsel

0%

0 granted of 1 decided

Outcomes by representation

Granted self-represented

67%

10 granted of 15 decided

Outcomes by representation

Range across judges

16 to 57%

grant rate across the 28 busiest judges, 2009 to 2009

Outcomes by judge

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 64% granted of 11 decided

Outcomes by concern

Decisions span 2009 to 2009

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.

63% granted overall (10 of 16).

DecisionsGrant rate051015200%25%50%75%100%20092009: 16 decisions · select to filter to 2009

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.
  • F · Financial Considerations

    64% granted  · 7 granted · 4 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • E · Personal Conduct

    60% granted  · 3 granted · 2 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • G · Alcohol Consumption

    100% granted  · 2 granted · 0 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • J · Criminal Conduct

    100% granted  · 2 granted · 0 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • D · Sexual Behavior

    0% granted  · 0 granted · 1 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • C · Foreign Preference

    0% granted  · 0 granted · 1 denied

    Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.

  • H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse

    100% granted  · 1 granted · 0 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.

Acknowledgment & remorse3
No subsequent offenses2
Passage of time1
Rehabilitation evidence1
Substance treatment completed1

Outcomes by representation

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

Represented by a lawyer

0% granted  · 0 granted · 1 denied

Self-represented

67% granted  · 10 granted · 5 denied

Difference

0.0 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: 2009 to 2009. 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 228 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

  • affirmed · 200 of 228 (88%)
  • reversed · 19 of 228 (8%)
  • remanded · 9 of 228 (4%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 8% 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
    206
    Affirmed
    198 (96%)
    Reversed
    1 (0%)
    Remanded
    7 (3%)

  • The Government (Department Counsel)

    Appeals
    21
    Affirmed
    1 (5%)
    Reversed
    18 (86%)
    Remanded
    2 (10%)

  • Both parties

    Appeals
    1
    Affirmed
    1 (100%)
    Reversed
    0 (0%)
    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 conclusion22
Ignored material evidence19
Misapplied mitigation4
Missing findings2
Second-guessed credibility without a basis1
Other1

Errors alleged on appeal

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

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law174
The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence98
Mitigation wrongly applied45
No specific harmful error alleged33
Whole-person analysis16
Erroneous finding of fact14
Due process or fairness12
Judge bias or partiality5
Procedural error1
Credibility determination1

Error found, but harmless

14%

of affirmances · 28 of 200

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

Most-cited authorities

  • Department of the Navy v. Egan169
  • Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.160
  • ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 1252
  • ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 738
  • ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 424
  • ISCR Case No. 06-1740922
  • Dorfmont v. Brown19
  • ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2315
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.

James E. Moody · 156 appealsMichael Y. Ra'anan · 153 appealsWilliam S. Fields · 149 appealsJeffrey D. Billett · 95 appealsJean E. Smallin · 84 appealsMichael D. Hipple · 42 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.