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: LeRoy F. Foreman · 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: 2018 to 2018 · remove Judge: LeRoy F. Foreman · 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

29%

20 granted of 69 decided

Grant rates over time

Granted with counsel

62%

8 granted of 13 decided

Outcomes by representation

Granted self-represented

21%

12 granted of 56 decided

Outcomes by representation

Range across judges

13 to 70%

grant rate across the 33 busiest judges, 2018 to 2018

Outcomes by judge

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 27% granted of 49 decided

Outcomes by concern

Decisions span 2018 to 2018

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.

29% granted overall (20 of 69). Yearly rates ranged 29 to 29% 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
27% granted · 13 granted · 36 denied
- Financial (unspecified)
  23% granted · 9 granted · 31 denied
- Credit-card debt
  25% granted · 6 granted · 18 denied
- Medical debt
  17% granted · 4 granted · 19 denied
- Unpaid taxes
  6% granted · 1 granted · 15 denied
- Auto-loan debt
  20% granted · 3 granted · 12 denied
E · Personal Conduct
27% granted · 4 granted · 11 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
J · Criminal Conduct
25% granted · 2 granted · 6 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
G · Alcohol Consumption
33% granted · 2 granted · 4 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
H · Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse
60% granted · 3 granted · 2 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
B · Foreign Influence
67% granted · 2 granted · 1 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
D · Sexual Behavior
0% granted · 0 granted · 2 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
C · Foreign Preference
100% granted · 2 granted · 0 denied
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
M · Use of Information Technology
0% granted · 0 granted · 1 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.

Rehabilitation evidence13

Debt paid in full6

Acknowledgment & remorse1

Chapter 7 bankruptcy1

No subsequent offenses1

Substance treatment completed1

Outcomes by representation

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

Represented by a lawyer

62% granted · 8 granted · 5 denied

Self-represented

21% granted · 12 granted · 44 denied

Difference

2.9 times

the grant rate with a lawyer

Outcomes by representation
Representation	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Self-represented	56	12	44
Represented by a lawyer	13	8	5

Self-represented
Cases
56
Granted
12
Denied
44
Grant rate
Represented by a lawyer
Cases
13
Granted
8
Denied
5
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: 2018 to 2018. Adjust the time range above to change it.

Outcomes by judge
Administrative Judge	Cases	Granted	Denied	Grant rate
Carol G. Ricciardello	77	10	67	Filter
Mark W. Harvey	70	23	47	Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman	69	20	49	Remove filter
Edward W. Loughran	65	28	37	Filter
Shari Dam	62	15	47	Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson	60	17	43	Filter
Noreen A. Lynch	55	21	34	Filter
Richard A. Cefola	53	25	28	Filter
Gregg A. Cervi	52	12	40	Filter
Robert E. Coacher	52	12	40	Filter
Elizabeth M. Matchinski	50	16	34	Filter
Braden M. Murphy	49	15	34	Filter
Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.	47	20	27	Filter
Robert J. Kilmartin	47	15	32	Filter
Juan J. Rivera	45	16	29	Filter

Carol G. Ricciardello
Cases
77
Granted
10
Denied
67
Grant rate
Filter
Mark W. Harvey
Cases
70
Granted
23
Denied
47
Grant rate
Filter
LeRoy F. Foreman
Cases
69
Granted
20
Denied
49
Grant rate
Remove filter
Edward W. Loughran
Cases
65
Granted
28
Denied
37
Grant rate
Filter
Shari Dam
Cases
62
Granted
15
Denied
47
Grant rate
Filter
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Cases
60
Granted
17
Denied
43
Grant rate
Filter
Noreen A. Lynch
Cases
55
Granted
21
Denied
34
Grant rate
Filter
Richard A. Cefola
Cases
53
Granted
25
Denied
28
Grant rate
Filter
Gregg A. Cervi
Cases
52
Granted
12
Denied
40
Grant rate
Filter
Robert E. Coacher
Cases
52
Granted
12
Denied
40
Grant rate
Filter
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Cases
50
Granted
16
Denied
34
Grant rate
Filter
Braden M. Murphy
Cases
49
Granted
15
Denied
34
Grant rate
Filter
Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.
Cases
47
Granted
20
Denied
27
Grant rate
Filter
Robert J. Kilmartin
Cases
47
Granted
15
Denied
32
Grant rate
Filter
Juan J. Rivera
Cases
45
Granted
16
Denied
29
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 267 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

affirmed · 237 of 267 (89%)
reversed · 15 of 267 (6%)
remanded · 15 of 267 (6%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 6% 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	249	236 (95%)	1 (0%)	12 (5%)
The Government (Department Counsel)	18	1 (6%)	14 (78%)	3 (17%)

The applicant
Appeals
249
Affirmed
236 (95%)
Reversed
1 (0%)
Remanded
12 (5%)
The Government (Department Counsel)
Appeals
18
Affirmed
1 (6%)
Reversed
14 (78%)
Remanded
3 (17%)

Grounds for reversal or remand

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

Ignored material evidence20

No rational connection from the facts to the conclusion18

Missing findings4

Other2

Incomplete record1

Second-guessed credibility without a basis1

Errors alleged on appeal

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

Arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law192

No specific harmful error alleged78

The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence47

Erroneous finding of fact26

Due process or fairness8

Judge bias or partiality5

Legal error4

Mitigation wrongly applied3

Whole-person analysis3

Credibility determination2

Error found, but harmless

16%

of affirmances · 39 of 237

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
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.30
ISCR Case No. 17-00257 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 722
ISCR Case No. 11-15184 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 2518
ISCR Case No. 14-06440 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 815
ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 2514
ISCR Case No. 15-00650 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 2712
ISCR Case No. 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 311

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 · 233 appealsJames F. Duffy · 232 appealsJames E. Moody · 162 appealsCharles C. Hale · 129 appealsWilliam S. Fields · 45 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.