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 September 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

961

decided public DOHA cases

Hearing decisions

842

decided after a hearing or on the written record

Appeal decisions

119

Appeal Board decisions, counted separately

Granted overall

20%

162 granted of 810 decided

Range across judges

2 to 41%

grant rate across the 20 busiest judges, 2022 to 2022

Most common concern

Guideline F

Financial Considerations · 21% granted of 582 decided

Decisions span 2022 to 2022

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.

20% granted overall (162 of 810). Yearly rates ranged 20 to 20% where the yearly sample is large enough.

DecisionsGrant rate05001,0000%25%50%75%100%20222022: 810 decisions · 20% granted · select to filter to 2022

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.

Acknowledgment & remorse6
Rehabilitation evidence4
Debt paid in full2
Passage of time2
Deep U.S. ties1
Documented abstinence period1
Financial counseling1

Outcomes by representation

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

The representation filter narrows the other sections. This section always shows every group, because a comparison with one side removed is not a comparison.

Represented by a lawyer

44% granted · 80 granted · 100 denied

Self-represented

20% granted · 162 granted · 648 denied

Difference

2.2 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: 2022 to 2022. 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 167 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and representation filters do not.

  • affirmed · 148 of 167 (89%)
  • reversed · 8 of 167 (5%)
  • remanded · 11 of 167 (7%)

Most appeals do not change the outcome: the Board overturned about 5% 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
    159
    Affirmed
    147 (92%)
    Reversed
    2 (1%)
    Remanded
    10 (6%)
  • The Government (Department Counsel)

    Appeals
    8
    Affirmed
    1 (13%)
    Reversed
    6 (75%)
    Remanded
    1 (13%)

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 conclusion12
Missing findings2
Lack of jurisdiction2
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 law112
No specific harmful error alleged66
The judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence51
Erroneous finding of fact21
Mitigation wrongly applied15
Judge bias or partiality12
Due process or fairness10
Legal error4
Whole-person analysis3
Credibility determination2

Error found, but harmless

19%

of affirmances · 28 of 148

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. Egan114
  • ISCR Case No. 19-0140017
  • ISCR Case No. 19-01400 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 315
  • ISCR Case No. 18-025819
  • ISCR Case No. 17-024888
  • ISCR Case No. 18-028727
  • ISCR Case No. 19-01220 at 3 (App. Bd. Jun. 16
  • ISCR Case No. 17-02488 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 306
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 F. Duffy · 166 appealsMoira D. Modzelewski · 157 appealsJames E. Moody · 112 appealsJennifer I. Goldstein · 66 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.