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

Concern

Representation

Judge: Robert Robinson Gales · remove Clear 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: 2017 to 2017 · remove Judge: Robert Robinson Gales · remove Clear all

Key findings

Cases in view

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

43%

27 granted of 63 decided

Grant rates over time

Granted with counsel

67%

6 granted of 9 decided

Outcomes by representation

Granted self-represented

39%

21 granted of 54 decided

Outcomes by representation

Range across judges

20 to 74%

grant rate across the 37 busiest judges, 2017 to 2017

Outcomes by judge

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 41% granted of 54 decided

Outcomes by concern

Decisions span 2017 to 2017

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.

43% granted overall (27 of 63). Yearly rates ranged 43 to 43% where the yearly sample is large enough.

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
41% granted · 22 granted · 32 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
  37% granted · 15 granted · 26 denied
- Credit-card debt
  54% granted · 14 granted · 12 denied
- Medical debt
  41% granted · 9 granted · 13 denied
- Auto-loan debt
  31% granted · 5 granted · 11 denied
- Utility / phone debt
  29% granted · 4 granted · 10 denied
- Unpaid taxes
  42% granted · 5 granted · 7 denied
E · Personal Conduct
17% granted · 2 granted · 10 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
17% granted · 1 granted · 5 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
B · Foreign Influence
100% granted · 5 granted · 0 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
J · Criminal Conduct
40% granted · 2 granted · 3 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
C · Foreign Preference
100% granted · 1 granted · 0 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
G · Alcohol Consumption
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.

No credited mitigations in this view.

Outcomes by representation

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

Represented by a lawyer

67% granted · 6 granted · 3 denied

Self-represented

39% granted · 21 granted · 33 denied

Difference

1.7 times

the grant rate with a lawyer

Outcomes by representation
Representation	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Self-represented	54	21	33
Represented by a lawyer	9	6	3

Self-represented
Cases
54
Granted
21
Denied
33
Grant rate
Represented by a lawyer
Cases
9
Granted
6
Denied
3
Grant rate

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: 2017 to 2017. Adjust the time range above to change it.

Outcomes by judge
Administrative Judge	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Mark W. Harvey	130	44	86	Filter
Carol G. Ricciardello	109	26	83	Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman	86	29	57	Filter
Jennifer I. Goldstein	83	26	57	Filter
Elizabeth M. Matchinski	80	31	49	Filter
Noreen A. Lynch	80	33	47	Filter
Shari Dam	80	20	60	Filter
Edward W. Loughran	80	33	47	Filter
Robert E. Coacher	78	28	50	Filter
Francisco Mendez	76	36	40	Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson	64	22	42	Filter
Robert Robinson Gales	63	27	36	Remove filter
Robert J. Kilmartin	62	21	41	Filter
Matthew E. Malone	61	23	38	Filter
Juan J. Rivera	60	27	33	Filter

Mark W. Harvey
Cases
130
Granted
44
Denied
86
Grant rate
Filter
Carol G. Ricciardello
Cases
109
Granted
26
Denied
83
Grant rate
Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman
Cases
86
Granted
29
Denied
57
Grant rate
Filter
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Cases
83
Granted
26
Denied
57
Grant rate
Filter
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Cases
80
Granted
31
Denied
49
Grant rate
Filter
Noreen A. Lynch
Cases
80
Granted
33
Denied
47
Grant rate
Filter
Shari Dam
Cases
80
Granted
20
Denied
60
Grant rate
Filter
Edward W. Loughran
Cases
80
Granted
33
Denied
47
Grant rate
Filter
Robert E. Coacher
Cases
78
Granted
28
Denied
50
Grant rate
Filter
Francisco Mendez
Cases
76
Granted
36
Denied
40
Grant rate
Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Cases
64
Granted
22
Denied
42
Grant rate
Filter
Robert Robinson Gales
Cases
63
Granted
27
Denied
36
Grant rate
Remove filter
Robert J. Kilmartin
Cases
62
Granted
21
Denied
41
Grant rate
Filter
Matthew E. Malone
Cases
61
Granted
23
Denied
38
Grant rate
Filter
Juan J. Rivera
Cases
60
Granted
27
Denied
33
Grant rate
Filter

† 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 279 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

affirmed · 254 of 279 (91%)
reversed · 9 of 279 (3%)
remanded · 16 of 279 (6%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 3% 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.

Appeals by party
Appealed by	Appeals	Affirmed	Reversed	Remanded
The applicant	270	253 (94%)	1 (0%)	16 (6%)
The Government (Department Counsel)	9	1 (11%)	8 (89%)	0 (0%)

The applicant
Appeals
270
Affirmed
253 (94%)
Reversed
1 (0%)
Remanded
16 (6%)
The Government (Department Counsel)
Appeals
9
Affirmed
1 (11%)
Reversed
8 (89%)
Remanded
0 (0%)

Grounds for reversal or remand

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

Ignored material evidence13

No rational connection from the facts to the conclusion13

Missing findings2

Second-guessed credibility without a basis2

Misapplied mitigation1

Other1

Errors alleged on appeal

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

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law203

No specific harmful error alleged72

The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence53

Erroneous finding of fact32

Due process or fairness19

Mitigation wrongly applied7

Whole-person analysis6

Judge bias or partiality5

Credibility determination2

New evidence offered, which the Board cannot accept1

Error found, but harmless

14%

of affirmances · 36 of 254

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. Egan202
ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 737
ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 2519
ISCR Case No. 15-08842 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 1417
ISCR Case No. 14-06686 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 2715
ISCR Case No. 15-08711 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 2414
ISCR Case No. 15-02854 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 2214
ISCR Case No. 15-01416 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 1513

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.

Michael Y. Ra'anan · 256 appealsJames F. Duffy · 236 appealsJames E. Moody · 217 appealsWilliam S. Fields · 126 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.

Measured timelines
How long each stage took, measured from dates stated in the decisions.
Time since the conduct
How long before the decision the last incident occurred.
Candor in the record
How falsification and omission allegations were resolved.
Veterans in the record
Decisions that state United States military service, counted by branch.
Decisions by country
Foreign-influence decisions arranged by the country involved.
The Issue Encyclopedia
Every specific issue inside each guideline, with its decided record.
The statutory bars
The bars set by statute, and how they appear in decided cases.
Docket reports
The decided record summarized the same way every quarter and every year.

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.