Outcome statistics across decided public DOHA cases. Descriptive, not predictive. Data through March 2026.
32% granted overall (4,757 of 14,998). Yearly rates ranged 14–40% where samples are solid.
Bars: hearing decisions per year. Line: grant rate, drawn only for years with at least 20decided cases. The dashed markers show when policies took effect; they don’t 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. Your concern filter (Financial Considerations) narrows the other sections; here it highlights the row so you can still compare.
| Representation | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-represented (no lawyer) | 13218 | 3841 | 9377 | 29% |
| Represented by a lawyer | 1777 | 915 | 862 | 51% |
| Unknown † | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% |
An association, not proof the lawyer caused it — the two groups differ in many ways. Click a row to filter the page.
Window: 2017–2026, chosen so era shifts don’t read as judge differences. Adjust the time range above to change it.
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 2,120 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 4% 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.
Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA Industrial Security Clearance Review (ISCR) decisions. They are not predictions or assessments of any future or pending case.
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. Hover any rate for its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
Hearing vs. appeal is read from each decision’s own text (the source label was unreliable). Appeals, mostly affirmed denials, are reported only in the appeals section and never mixed into a hearing grant rate. Every chart and table honors the filter bar except the appeals section, which honors the year and concern filters only.
Descriptive of decided public DOHA ISCR decisions · data through March 2026.
† = 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.
| Administrative Judge | Cases | Granted | Denied | Grant rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carol G. Ricciardello | 325 | 51 | 274 | 16% |
| LeRoy F. Foreman | 272 | 55 | 217 | 20% |
| Mark W. Harvey | 267 | 58 | 209 | 22% |
| Edward W. Loughran | 255 | 99 | 156 | 39% |
| Darlene Lokey Anderson | 254 | 64 | 190 | 25% |
| Richard A. Cefola | 211 | 68 | 143 | 32% |
| Roger C. Wesley | 198 | 43 | 155 | 22% |
| Robert E. Coacher | 197 | 49 | 148 | 25% |
| Robert Robinson Gales | 180 | 53 | 127 | 29% |
| Braden M. Murphy | 172 | 55 | 117 | 32% |
| Noreen A. Lynch | 167 | 51 | 116 | 31% |
| Candace Le'i Garcia | 167 | 59 | 108 | 35% |
| Gregg A. Cervi | 159 | 38 | 121 | 24% |
| Marc E. Curry | 151 | 53 | 98 | 35% |
| Elizabeth M. Matchinski | 149 | 35 | 114 | 23% |
† means fewer than 20 decided cases — too few to trust the percentage. Click a row to filter the whole page to that judge.
| Appealed by | Appeals | Affirmed | Reversed | Remanded |
|---|
| Applicant | 2,011 | 1908 (95%) | 9 (0%) | 94 (5%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government (Dept. Counsel) | 106 | 18 (17%) | 74 (70%) | 14 (13%) |
| Both parties † | 3 | 3 (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.
Appeals are decided by three-member panels, so outcomes belong to the panel, not to any single judge. There is no per-judge rate for that reason.
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 →