Outcome patterns across decided public DOHA cases. Use the filters to explore concerns, time periods, representation, judges, and appeals. Descriptive statistics, not predictions. Data through June 2026.
Ask follow-up questions about the statistics on this page and get grounded, descriptive answers within your current filters.
A Professional feature
The statistics on this page stay free for everyone. The assistant that answers questions about them is part of Professional. The blurred text behind this notice is an example answer with illustrative numbers, not live data.
See ProfessionalReference dates for comparisons: the current adjudicative guidelines took effect in June 2017; updated marijuana guidance issued in December 2021.
How to use this page: filter by concern, representation, or years above · click a chart row to see its underlying cases · every section downloads as CSV · all figures are descriptive counts of decided cases, never a prediction.
24% granted overall (87 of 361). Yearly rates ranged 24–24% where samples are solid.
Tap any year to filter the page to it.
Bars: hearing decisions per year. Line: grant rate, drawn only for years with 20or more decided cases. The dashed lines mark the 2017 guidelines and the December 2021 marijuana guidance taking effect; they do not claim a policy caused a change. Early years are thin because the public archive is: DOHA published few decisions online before 2002, and almost none survive for 1999–2000.
Granted vs denied for each concern. Open a row for the specific issues inside it.
| Representation | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-represented (no lawyer) | 290 | 62 | 228 | 21% |
| Represented by a lawyer | 69 | 24 | 45 | 35% |
| personal_rep † | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50% |
An association, not proof the lawyer caused it: the two groups differ in many ways. Click a row to filter the page.
Window: 2026–2026. Adjust the time range above to change it.
| Administrative Judge | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 216 | 53 | 162 | 25% |
| Richard A. Cefola | 20 | 3 | 17 | 15% |
| Darlene Lokey Anderson † | 14 | 6 | 8 | 43% |
| Charles C. Hale † | 13 | 5 | 8 | 38% |
| LeRoy F. Foreman † | 12 | 3 | 9 | 25% |
| A. M. Driskill † | 11 | 0 | 11 | 0% |
| Eric H. Borgstrom † | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10% |
| Erin C. Hogan † | 9 | 2 | 7 | 22% |
| Benjamin R. Dorsey † | 8 | 1 | 7 | 13% |
| Pamela C. Benson † | 8 | 3 | 5 | 38% |
| Wilford H. Ross † | 7 | 4 | 3 | 57% |
| Mark W. Harvey † | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0% |
| Roger C. Wesley † | 6 | 2 | 4 | 33% |
| Ross D. Hyams † | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0% |
| Gatha LaFaye † | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20% |
† means fewer than 20 decided cases, too few to trust the percentage. Click a row to filter the whole page to that judge.
The Appeal Board reviews specific claimed errors. It affirms (decision stands), reverses (overturned), or remands (sent back); it does not rehear the case. Based on 54 appeal decisions with a verified outcome. Year and concern filters apply here; judge and lawyer filters do not.
Most appeals change nothing: the Board overturned about 11% of the decisions brought to it.
Applicants appeal denials; the Government appeals grants it disagrees with. Whether an outcome helped the applicant depends on who appealed.
Descriptive counts over decided public DOHA ISCR decisions, never a prediction · Granted ÷ decided; † marks groups under 20 cases · data through June 2026 · Full methodology →
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
Too few cases to break this concern into specific issues.
† = fewer than 20 cases, too few to trust. A case can raise several concerns, so rows overlap.
How often each mitigation was expressly accepted by the judge (not merely claimed) across the cases in view.
| Appealed by | Appeals | Affirmed | Reversed | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicant | 45 | 42 (93%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (7%) |
| Government (Dept. Counsel) † | 8 | 0 (0%) | 6 (75%) | 2 (25%) |
| Both parties † | 1 | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
† means fewer than 20 appeals, too few to trust the percentages.
The grounds the Board gave (a case can have more than one).
The error(s) parties raised, across all appeals in scope.
Affirmances where the Board agreed the judge erred, but it didn’t change the result.
The past rulings the Board leans on.
Structured reading of the decided public Appeal Board record (the Board’s stated outcome matched our independent read in 100% of cases).
Browse appeal decisions →