U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

FY 2006
Statistical Year Book

Prepared by the Office of Planning, Analysis, & Technology
February 2007

Contact Information
Public Affairs Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600
Falls Church, VA 22041
(703) 305-0289
(703) 605-0365 (fax)

DISCLAIMER
The Statistical Year Book has been prepared as a public service by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and
is strictly informational in nature. In no way should any information in the Year Book, in whole or in part, be regarded as legal advice
or authority, or be understood in any way to enlarge upon, or otherwise modify or interpret, any existing legal authority, including, but
not limited to, the Immigration and Nationality Act and Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Statistical Year Book is updated annually. The legend at the bottom of each page reflects the last revision date for that
page. Yearly updates are available electronically through the EOIR Web Site at www.usdoj.gov/eoir.

FY 2006 STATISTICAL YEAR BOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab
Message from the Director
Summary of Highlights

A

Immigration Courts:
Total Matters Received and Completed
Proceedings Received and Completed by Type
Proceedings Completed by Disposition
Proceedings Completed by Nationality
Proceedings Completed by Language
Proceedings Completed by Representation Status
Failures to Appear
Asylum Cases Received and Completed
Asylum Grants by Nationality
Disposition of Asylum Cases
Expedited Asylum Cases
Convention Against Torture
Proceedings Completed with Applications for Relief
Proceedings Completed for Detained Cases
Institutional Hearing Program Case Processing
Immigration Judge Grants of Voluntary Departure
Applications for Relief other than Asylum

B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R

Board of Immigration Appeals:
Total Cases Received and Completed
Cases Received and Completed by Type of Case
Pending Caseload by Year Filed
IJ Decision Appeals Completed by Nationality
IJ Decision Appeals Completed by Representation Status
IJ Decision Appeals Completed for Detained Cases

S
T
U
V
W
X

Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals:
Immigration Judge Decisions (Proceedings) Appealed

Y

Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
Total Cases Received and Completed

Z

Appendix: Glossary of Terms

FY 2006 STATISTICAL YEAR BOOK
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Page
List of Figures:
Figure 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received and Completed
Figure 2 - Immigration Court Matters Received by Type
Figure 3 - Immigration Court Matters Completed by Type
Figure 4 - Immigration Judge Proceedings Completed by Completion Type
Figure 5 - Immigration Judge Decisions by Disposition
Figure 6 - FY 2006 Court Proceedings Completed by Nationality
Figure 7 - FY 2002 Court Proceedings Completed by Language
Figure 8 - FY 2006 Court Proceedings Completed by Language
Figure 9 - Court Proceedings Completed: Percentage of Represented Cases
Figure 10 - Overall Failure to Appear Rates
Figure 11 - Failure to Appear Rates for Non-Detained Aliens
Figure 12 - Failure to Appear Rates for Released Aliens
Figure 13 - Immigration Court Asylum Receipts: Affirmative and Defensive
Figure 14 - Asylum Cases: Receipts and Completions
Figure 15 - FY 2006 Asylum Grants by Nationality
Figure 16 - Immigration Courts: Asylum Grant Rate
Figure 17 - Immigration Courts: Affirmative Grant Rate
Figure 18 - Immigration Courts: Defensive Grant Rate
Figure 19 - Asylum Completions by Disposition
Figure 19A - Asylum Withholding Grant Rate
Figure 20 - Expedited Asylum Receipts Compared to Total Asylum Receipts
Figure 21 - Expedited Asylum Receipts and Completions
Figure 22 - Immigration Court Proceedings: Percent Completions with
Applications for Relief
Figure 23 - Immigration Court Proceedings Completed: Detained and Total
Figure 24 - IHP Cases Received and Completed
Figure 25 - Total BIA Cases Received and Completed
Figure 26 - BIA Case Receipts by Source of Appeal
Figure 27 - BIA Case Completions by Source of Appeal
Figure 28 - BIA Pending Case Appeals by Year Filed
Figure 29 - FY 2006 BIA Completions by Nationality
Figure 30 - IJ Appeal Decisions: Percentage of Represented Cases
Figure 31 - IJ Case Appeal Decisions: Detained and Total
Figure 32 - Immigration Judge Decisions (Proceedings) Appealed

N1
O1
P1
S2
S2
S2
U1
V1
W1
X1
Y1

Figure 33 - OCAHO Cases Received and Completed

Z1

ii

B2
B5
B5
D1
D2
E1
F1
F1
G1
H2
H3
H4
I1
I2
J1
K2
K3
K3
K4
K5
L1
L2

FY 2006 STATISTICAL YEAR BOOK
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Page
List of Tables:
Table 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received by Court for
FY 2005 and FY 2006
Table 2 - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court for
FY 2005 and FY 2006
Table 3 - Immigration Court Proceedings Received by Case Type
Table 4 - Immigration Court Proceedings Completed by Case Type
Table 5 - Court Proceedings Completed by Nationality: Top 25
Nationalities for FY 2002 – FY 2006
Table 6 - Asylum Receipts and Completions by Court for FY 2006

B3
B4
C3
C4
E2
I3

Table 7 - Asylum Grants By Nationality: Top 25 Nationalities for
FY 2002 – FY 2006
Table 8 - FY 2006 Asylum Grant Rate by Immigration Court
Table 9 - FY 2006 Convention Against Torture Cases by Disposition
Table 10 - FY 2006 Convention Against Torture Completions by Court
Table 11 - FY 2006 Immigration Court Completions (Proceedings) With
Applications for Relief
Table 12 - FY 2006 Immigration Court Completions (Proceedings) for
Detained Cases
Table 13 - IHP Completions by Disposition
Table 14 - IJ Removal Decisions Compared to Voluntary Departure Decisions
Table 15 - Grants of Relief
Table 16 - BIA Receipts by Type
Table 17 - BIA Completions by Type
Table 18 - IJ Decision Appeals Completed by Nationality: Top 25
Nationalities for FY 2002 – FY 2006
Table 19 - Breakdown of BIA Detained Completions

iii

J2
K6
M1
M2
N2
O3
P2
Q1
R3
T2
T2
V2
X2

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of the Director
Director

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2400
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

March 9, 2007
MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR
I am pleased to provide the FY 2006 Statistical Year Book which summarizes the
work of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for the past five years. EOIR,
an agency of the Department of Justice, carries out its mission through three main
organizational components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ); the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
(OCAHO).
In FY 2006, OCIJ supervised immigration judges located in 52 immigration courts
throughout the United States. Immigration Judges travel to more than 100 other hearing
locations to conduct proceedings. At each proceeding, a Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) Assistant Chief Counsel represents the United States Government, while the
respondent alien appears on his or her own behalf or retains an attorney at no expense to
the Government.
The BIA, located in Falls Church, Virginia, conducts appellate reviews of decisions
rendered by Immigration Judges. All published decisions of the Board are binding on
Immigration Judges and on DHS, unless overruled or modified by the Attorney General or
a Federal court. Unpublished decisions of the Board are binding on the Immigration Judge
or the DHS with regard to the individual case at issue, unless overruled or modified by the
Attorney General or a Federal court.
The third EOIR component, OCAHO, also is located in Falls Church. OCAHO
resolves cases concerning employer sanctions, immigration-related employment
discrimination, and document fraud.
EOIR collects information about aliens who appear in immigration courts and whose
cases subsequently are appealed to the BIA. Both immigration court staff, located
throughout the United States, and the BIA staff, record and update case information in
EOIR’s information processing systems.
The following report is intended to provide an introduction to the types of immigration
matters processed by EOIR on a daily basis. Included in this report are data from FY 2002
- FY 2006. Data in this report have been updated, and thus may be slightly different from
previously published Statistical Year Book data.
The accomplishments reported in the Statistical Year Book are the result of the effort
and dedication demonstrated by EOIR staff members throughout the year.
Kevin D. Rooney
Director

FY 2006 HIGHLIGHTS
!

Immigration court receipts increased by 20 percent between FY 2002
(290,400) and FY 2006 (348,216). However, receipts in FY 2006
decreased by 6 percent from FY 2005. (Figure 1, page B2)

!

Immigration court completions increased by 34 percent between FY 2002
(273,787) and FY 2006 (365,851). Completions in FY 2006 increased by 4
percent from FY 2005. (Figure 1, page B2)

!

Immigration Judge (IJ) decisions increased by 61 percent between FY
2002 (170,222) and FY 2006 (273,615). (Figure 4, page D1)

!

Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and China were the leading
nationalities of immigration court completions during FY 2006,
representing 68 percent of the caseload. (Figure 6, page E1)

!

Spanish was the most frequently spoken language for immigration court
case completions during FY 2006. (Figure 8, page F1).

!

Thirty -five (35) percent of aliens whose cases were completed in
immigration courts during FY 2006 were represented. The representations
rate for FY 2005 and FY 2006 would be 48 percent if failure to appear
completions were removed from the data. (Figure 9, page G1)

!

The overall failure to appear rate increased in FY 2006 (39%) from a five
year low in FY 2003 (22%). The rate remained static from FY 2005 to FY
2006. (Figure 10, page H2)

!

Asylum applications filed with the immigration courts decreased by 27
percent from FY 2002 to FY 2006. Nearly 90 percent of this decrease was
in affirmative receipts. (Figure 13, page I1)

!

In FY 2006, the Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New York, NY; and San
Francisco, CA immigration courts received 54 percent of the asylum
applications filed with the courts. (Table 6, page I3)

!

Seven nationalities were among the top ten nationalities granted asylum
each year during the five-year period FY 2002-06: China, Colombia, Haiti,
Albania, India, Indonesia, and Armenia. (Table 7, page J2)

!

The grant rate for asylum applications increased to 45 percent in FY 2006.
The grant rate was 51 percent for affirmative applications and 34 percent
for defensive applications. (Figures 16, 17, and 18, pages K2 and K3)

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Yearbook

A1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

!

In FY 2006, 26 percent of proceedings completed at the immigration
courts had applications for relief. (Figure 22, page N1)

!

Twenty-nine (29) percent of FY 2006 immigration court completions
involved detained aliens. (Figure 23, page O1)

!

BIA had a 14 percent increase in receipts between FY 2002 (34,834) and
FY 2006 (39,707) and a 12 percent decrease in completions during the
same period. (Table 17, page T2)

!

Mexico, China, Haiti, Colombia, and Guatemala were the leading
nationalities of BIA IJ decision appeals completed in FY 2006,
representing 53 percent of the caseload. (Figure 29, page V1)

!

Seventy-one (71) percent of the BIA IJ decision appeals completed in FY
2006 were for represented aliens. (Figure 30, page W1)

!

In FY 2006, 9 percent of IJ decisions were appealed to the BIA. The
percent of IJ decisions appealed has decreased each year since 2003,
when 17 percent of IJ decisions were appealed. (Figure 32, page Y1)

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Yearbook

A2

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Immigration Courts:
Total Matters Received and Completed
An alien charged by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a violation
of immigration law is issued a charging document. The most common charging documents
are the Notice to Appear (NTA) and the Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge. When the
charging document is filed by DHS with the Immigration Court, jurisdiction over the case
transfers from DHS to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which has
oversight over the 531 Immigration Courts located throughout the United States. Once an
alien has been ordered removed by EOIR, DHS carries out the removal; EOIR does not
maintain statistics on alien removals from the United States.
During court proceedings, aliens appear before an Immigration Judge, and either
contest or concede the charges against them. In some instances, the Immigration Judge
adjourns the case and sets a continuance date; for example, the judge may allow the alien
time to obtain representation or to file an application for relief. After hearing a case, the
Immigration Judge renders a decision. The Immigration Judge may order the alien
removed, or may grant relief such as cancellation of removal, asylum, adjustment of status,
etc. If the Immigration Judge decides that removability has not been established by DHS,
he or she may terminate the proceedings.
In addition to proceedings, Immigration Judges consider other matters such as
bonds and motions.
•

Bond redetermination hearings are held when an alien in custody seeks release
on his or her own recognizance, or seeks a reduction in the amount of bond.
In some cases, bond redetermination hearings are held before EOIR receives
the charging document from DHS. During bond redetermination hearings, the
judge may decide to lower, raise, maintain, or eliminate altogether the bond
amount set by DHS, or to change bond conditions.

•

Additionally, either the alien or DHS may request by motion that a case
previously heard by an Immigration Judge be reopened or reconsidered.
Generally, aliens or DHS file motions to reopen or reconsider because of
changed circumstances.

For the purposes of this Year Book, the term Immigration Court matters includes
proceedings (deportation, exclusion, removal, credible fear, reasonable fear, claimed
status, asylum only, rescission, continued detention review, NACARA, and withholding
only), bond redeterminations, and motions. Receipts are defined as the total number of
proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions received by the Immigration Courts
during the reporting period. Completions include Immigration Judge decisions on
proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions; other completions such as
administrative closings and changes of venue.

1

Data in the Year Book is based on 52 Immigration Courts. The court at Headquarters serves to assist
many of the Immigration Courts in the processing of their cases but is not credited with case completions.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

B1

Total Immigration Court Matters
Received and Completed
380,000

Total Immigration Court Matters
Completions
Receipts
273,787
290,400
FY 02
296,120
299,197
FY 03
302,049
299,475
FY 04
352,869
369,760
FY 05
365,851
348,216
FY 06

360,000
340,000
320,000

300,000

280,000

260,000

FY 02

FY 03

Receipts

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Completions

Figure 1

As shown in Figure 1 above, the number of immigration matters received by the
Immigration Courts increased each year between FY 2002 and FY 2005. The increase in
receipts from FY 2002 to FY 2005 was 27 percent. The decrease in receipts from FY 2005
to FY 2006 was 6 percent. Immigration matters completed increased from FY 2002 to FY
2006. The five year increase in completions was 34 percent.
While some courts showed increases in receipts over FY 2005 levels, others showed
decreases. In Table 1, shown on page B3, courts with increases of 25 percent or more are
shown in blue, and those with decreases of 25 percent or more are shown in red. The
Immigration Court in Salt Lake City, Utah showed the largest percentage increase in
receipts, up 147%. The Immigration Court in Fishkill, NY showed the largest decrease,
down 59 percent.
Table 2 on page B4 provides a comparison of FY 2005 and FY 2006 completions.
Courts with increases in completions of 25 percent or more are shown in blue, and those
with decreases of 25 percent or more are shown in red. The Immigration Court in Salt Lake
City, Utah had a significant increase in both receipts and completions.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

B2

Table 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received by Court for FY 2005 and FY 2006
Immigration Court
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BRADENTON, FLORIDA
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SAN PEDRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

FY 2005
7,884
7,863
5,946
1,106
2,641
12,295
3,561
2,293
13,057
6,780
5,261
3,951
7,785
4,537
4,520
5,202
1,957
14,802
1,022
8,275
2,700
34,940
4,154
647
4,268
11,607
1,904
3,628
7,128
3,677
17,185
2,539
2,415
23,074
1,306
20,180
8,099
3,702
6,214
4,029
4,161
1,548
553
40,141
5,231
11,145
5,047
7,432
2,915
1,322
3,460
2,671
369,760

Courts with decreases in receipts equal to or more than 25%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

FY 2006
8,108
9,413
6,009
1,424
3,010
7,692
1,534
2,891
14,466
7,924
7,236
4,386
7,466
4,117
5,734
3,749
2,030
15,184
420
5,392
3,739
25,725
2,461
819
4,329
11,449
1,840
3,322
8,880
3,138
19,618
3,327
3,121
22,462
1,684
20,936
7,445
4,834
6,573
3,072
3,880
1,563
1,365
24,819
5,268
11,245
4,476
10,091
2,125
785
2,275
3,365
348,216

Rate of Change
3%
20%
1%
29%
14%
-37%
-57%
26%
11%
17%
38%
11%
-4%
-9%
27%
-28%
4%
3%
-59%
-35%
38%
-26%
-41%
27%
1%
-1%
-3%
-8%
25%
-15%
14%
31%
29%
-3%
29%
4%
-8%
31%
6%
-24%
-7%
1%
147%
-38%
1%
1%
-11%
36%
-27%
-41%
-34%
26%
-6%

Courts with increases in receipts equal to or more than 25%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

B3

Table 2 - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court for FY 2005 and FY 2006
Immigration Court
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BRADENTON, FLORIDA
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SAN PEDRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Courts with decreases in completions equal to or more than 25%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

FY 2005
6,962
6,126
5,336
1,115
2,763
8,643
3,164
2,318
12,733
6,359
5,307
4,167
7,757
4,496
4,503
4,565
2,047
14,815
835
8,318
2,639
34,347
3,218
718
4,131
10,516
1,903
3,319
7,145
3,596
21,822
2,550
2,484
20,208
1,125
18,630
7,331
3,770
4,864
4,097
5,282
1,519
564
34,972
5,174
12,255
4,937
7,060
2,852
1,364
3,563
2,585
352,869

FY 2006
8,709
9,327
6,448
1,385
3,232
9,858
2,549
2,441
14,349
7,515
6,865
4,130
7,456
4,053
5,579
5,005
1,970
15,017
530
5,413
2,910
31,761
3,213
753
4,478
13,717
1,872
3,256
8,706
3,013
19,051
3,086
3,267
24,604
1,399
21,166
7,592
4,754
5,060
4,324
4,058
1,344
1,228
30,679
5,170
11,706
4,482
9,124
1,905
805
2,243
3,294
365,851

Rate of Change
25%
52%
21%
24%
17%
14%
-19%
5%
13%
18%
29%
-1%
-4%
-10%
24%
10%
-4%
1%
-37%
-35%
10%
-8%
-0%
5%
8%
30%
-2%
-2%
22%
-16%
-13%
21%
32%
22%
24%
14%
4%
26%
4%
6%
-23%
-12%
118%
-12%
-0%
-4%
-9%
29%
-33%
-41%
-37%
27%
4%

Courts with increases in completions equal to or more than 25%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

B4

Figures 2 and 3 below provide information on the types of matters received and
completed by the Immigration Courts. Proceedings make up the bulk of the courts’ work, but
they also process significant numbers of bonds and motions.

Immigration Court Matters Received
By Type
400,000

Immigration Court Matters Received
Total
Motions
Proceedings Bonds
11,919 290,400
245,159 33,322
FY 02
11,724 299,197
254,367 33,106
FY 03
12,004 299,475
257,587 29,884
FY 04
12,252 369,760
331,179 26,329
FY 05
12,274 348,216
305,515 30,427
FY 06

300,000

200,000
100,000
0

FY 02

Proceedings

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Motions

Bonds

Figure 2

Immigration Court Matters Completed
By Type
Immigration Court Matters Completed
Total
Motions
Proceedings Bonds
11,954 273,787
228,422 33,411
FY 02
12,023 296,120
250,823 33,274
FY 03
12,189 302,049
259,863 29,997
FY 04
12,129 352,869
314,617 26,123
FY 05
12,182 365,851
323,845 29,824
FY 06

400,000
300,000

200,000
100,000

0

FY 02

Proceedings

FY 03
Bonds

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Motions

Figure 3

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

B5

Immigration Courts:
Proceedings Received and Completed by Type
This section of the Statistical Year Book provides further details on proceedings by
type. As noted previously in Tab B, proceedings, motions, and bond redeterminations
make up the various types of matters considered by the Immigration Courts.
Until April 1, 1997, the two major types of proceedings conducted by Immigration
Courts were exclusion proceedings and deportation proceedings. Individuals charged by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now reorganized under the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS)) as excludable were placed in exclusion proceedings.
Exclusion cases generally involved a person who tried to enter the United States, but was
stopped at the point of entry because INS found the person to be inadmissible. Deportation
cases usually arose when INS alleged that an alien had entered the country illegally, or had
entered legally, but then violated one or more conditions of his or her visa.
Rescission cases, a less common type of case, were also received by the
Immigration Courts prior to April 1, 1997, and continue to be received today. In a
rescission case, DHS issues a Notice of Intent to Rescind an individual’s permanent
resident status, and the individual has the right to contest the charge before an Immigration
Judge.
Provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (IIRIRA), which became effective on April 1, 1997, established five new types of
proceedings:
•

Removal Proceedings. Under removal proceedings (which replaced
exclusion and deportation proceedings), DHS must file a Notice to Appear
(NTA) to initiate the proceedings.

•

Credible Fear Review. Arriving aliens with no documents or fraudulent
documents are subject to expedited removal by DHS. If an arriving alien who
has been ordered removed under the expedited removal provisions
expresses a “credible fear” of persecution, the alien is referred for an
interview by an asylum officer. Aliens found by the asylum officer not to have
a credible fear of persecution may request a review by an Immigration Judge.
If the judge determines there is “credible fear”, the judge will vacate the DHS
order of expedited removal, and the alien will be placed in removal
proceedings.

•

Reasonable Fear Review. DHS has the authority to order the administrative
removal of certain aggravated felons, and to reinstate orders of removal for
aliens previously removed. If an alien who has been ordered administratively
removed, or whose prior order of removal has been reinstated expresses a
fear of returning to the country of removal, a DHS asylum officer makes a
“reasonable fear” determination. Aliens found by the asylum officer not to

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

C1

have a reasonable fear of persecution may request a review by an
Immigration Judge. If the judge determines there is “reasonable fear”, the
alien will be placed in withholding only proceedings.
•

Claimed Status Review. If an alien in expedited removal proceedings before
DHS claims to be a U.S. citizen, to have been lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, to have been admitted as a refugee, or to have been
granted asylum, and DHS determines that the alien has no such claim, he or
she can obtain a review of that claim by an Immigration Judge.

•

Asylum-Only. An asylum only case is initiated when an arriving “crewman or
stowaway” is not eligible to apply for admission into the United States, but
wants to request asylum. These proceedings also cover Visa Waiver
Program beneficiaries and individuals ordered removed from the United
States on security grounds.

Additional types of proceedings include:
•

Continued Detention Review. In response to a United States Supreme Court
decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, a new type of proceeding was established
regarding the continued detention of aliens who are subject to final orders of
removal. In these cases the alien has already been ordered removed, but
DHS is unable to effect the removal (e.g., lack of a travel document, no
diplomatic relations with the receiving country, etc). The only issue for the
Immigration Judge to decide in Continued Detention Review cases is
whether or not the alien should remain in custody.
•

NACARA. Certain aliens may apply for suspension of deportation or
cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act (NACARA).

•

Withholding Only. A previous removal/deportation/exclusion order has been
reinstated by DHS or the alien has been ordered removed (administratively)
by DHS (based upon a conviction for an aggravated felony) and the alien
expresses a fear of persecution or torture and that claim is reviewed by an
asylum officer. The asylum officer has concluded that the alien has a
reasonable fear of persecution or torture or an Immigration Judge conducted
a Reasonable Fear proceeding and found that “reasonable fear of
persecution or torture” exists. The IJ’s Reasonable Fear findings
automatically initiates a Withholding Only hearing.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

C2

Table 3 shows all types of proceedings received by the Immigration Courts between FY
2002 and FY 2006. Receipts of deportation and exclusion cases have declined since FY
2002 because these types of proceedings were no longer initiated by INS (now DHS) after
1997.

Table 3 - Immigration Court Proceedings Received by Case Type
Type of Proceeding

FY2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

Deportation

7,534

5,935

4,542

4,219

3,639

Exclusion

1,277

751

502

413

387

233,631

244,910

249,498

324,538

299,748

Credible Fear

85

42

41

114

412

Reasonable Fear*

85

103

92

55

98

Claimed Status

85

91

50

77

71

2,238

2,297

2,627

1,547

961

39

23

28

25

31

0

5

8

3

9

59

91

36

4

27

118

117

160

184

132

8

2

3

0

0

Total
245,159
254,367
257,587
331,179
*Prior to FY 2003 Reasonable Fear was reported under Credible Fear.

305,515

Removal

Asylum Only
Rescission
Continued Detention Review
NACARA
Withholding Only
Unknown

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

C3

Table 4 shows all types of proceedings completed by the Immigration Courts for the
period FY 2002 to FY 2006.
Note that proceedings completed do not reflect only
Immigration Judge decisions. These numbers include other completions such as transfers
and changes of venue. As shown in Tab D, “other completions” accounted for 16 percent
of the proceedings completed in FY 2006.

Table 4 - Immigration Court Proceedings Completed by Case Type
Type of Proceeding

FY2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

Deportation

8,643

8,963

6,268

4,694

4,142

Exclusion

1,088

1,236

836

581

462

215,998

238,067

249,922

306,786

317,032

Credible Fear

84

42

37

114

411

Reasonable Fear*

87

101

92

57

94

Claimed Status

84

88

54

75

64

2,228

2,049

2,405

2,062

1,458

33

47

27

27

29

0

3

10

3

6

60

99

70

29

18

116

125

138

187

129

1

3

4

2

0

Total
228,422
250,823
*Prior to FY 2003 this was reported under Credible Fear.

259,863

314,617

323,845

Removal

Asylum Only
Rescission
Continued Detention Review
NACARA
Withholding Only
Unknown

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

C4

Immigration Courts:
Proceedings Completed by Disposition
After a hearing, the Immigration Judge either renders an oral decision, or reserves
the decision and issues it at a later date. In rendering a decision, the Immigration Judge
may order the alien removed from the United States, grant some form of relief, or terminate
the proceedings if removability has not been established by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) .
In addition to decisions, there are other possible proceedings outcomes which are
reported here as “other” completions. Some cases are administratively closed and the
Immigration Judge does not render a decision on the merits. Administrative closures are
counted as “other” completions, as are cases transferred to a different hearing location or
granted a change of venue.
Figure 4 provides a breakdown of proceedings from FY 2002 to FY 2006 by type of
completion – either through an Immigration Judge decision or through an “other”
completion, such as an administrative closure or change of venue. Between FY 2002 and
FY 2005, the number of cases counted as “other” completions have decreased each year.
There was a slight increase (1 percent) from FY 2005 to FY 2006. In FY 2002, “other”
completions accounted for approximately 25 percent of total completions and in FY 2006
they accounted for only 16 percent of total completions.

IJ Proceedings Completed
By Completion Type
350,000

300,000

250,000

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

200,000
150,000

100,000

50,000

0

FY 02

FY 03

Decisions

FY 04

FY 05

IJ Proceedings Completed
Other
Decisions
Completions
58,200
170,222
52,882
197,941
50,589
209,274
49,825
264,792
50,230
273,615

Total
228,422
250,823
259,863
314,617
323,845

FY 06

Other Completions

Figure 4
Figure 5 provides a breakout of decisions by disposition type. Immigration Judges
first decide whether or not the charges against an alien should be sustained. If the charges
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

D1

are not sustained or where the alien has established eligibility for naturalization, the judge
terminates the case.1 If charges are sustained, the judge decides whether to order the
alien removed from the United States or to grant relief. In some cases, the Immigration
Judge may permit the alien to depart the United States voluntarily. Orders of voluntary
departure are included as removals. There are also a few Immigration Judge decisions
classified as “other” decisions. For example, an Immigration Judge may permit an alien in
proceedings to withdraw his or her application for admission.

Immigration Judge Decisions
By Disposition
300,000

250,000

200,000
150,000

100,000

50,000

0

FY 02

Termination

FY 03

FY 04

Relief

Other

FY 05

FY 06

Removal

Figure 5

Termination
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Number
9,334
9,961
9,949
9,383
15,985

IJ Decisions by Disposition
Other
Removal
Number
% of Total Number % of Total
% of Total
0.6
1,057
79.4
14.5 135,232
0.8
1,548
78.4
15.8 155,145
0.7
1,437
78.6
16.0 164,451
0.5
1,344
84.0
12.0 222,382
0.4
1,199
80.4
13.3 220,057

Relief

% of Total Number
24,599
5.5
31,287
5.0
33,437
4.8
31,683
3.5
36,374
5.8

Total
Number % of Total
100.0
170,222
100.0
197,941
100.0
209,274
100.0
264,792
100.0
273,615

1

Termination decisions increased by close to 70% between FY 2005 and FY 2006. This increase may be due in part
to recent regulatory and ICE policy changes with regard to 8 CFR §§ 245, 1001.1 and 1245 prescribing authority to
USCIS to adjudicate applications for adjustment of status from arriving aliens and the use of prosecutorial discretion
for individuals with viable forms of relief available to them through USCIS affirmative processing. See Interim Rule,
Eligibility of Arriving Aliens in Removal Proceedings To Apply for Adjustment of Status and Jurisdiction To Adjudicate
Applications for Adjustment of Status at 71 FR 27585, 27592 (Friday, May 12, 2006).
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

D2

Between FY 2002 and FY 2005, the percentage of aliens ordered removed
increased from 79 percent to 84 percent, in FY 2006 the percentage decreased to 80
percent.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

D3

Immigration Courts:
Proceedings Completed by Nationality
Immigration Court staff record in EOIR’s data system the nationality of aliens who
appear before Immigration Judges. Data in this section provide information on the
predominant nationalities for completed proceedings.

FY 2006 Court Proceedings Completed
By Nationality
All Others (19.57%)
Nicaragua (1.39%)
Colombia (2.10%)
Haiti (2.31%)

Mexico (27.65%)

Cuba (3.55%)
Brazil (3.55%)
China (4.17%)
Guatemala (6.78%)
Honduras (9.59%)

El Salvador (19.35%)

Figure 6
FY 2006 Court Proceedings Completed by Nationality
% of Total
Cases
Nationality
27.65%
89,540
Mexico
19.35%
62,650
El Salvador
9.59%
31,064
Honduras
6.78%
21,969
Guatemala
4.17%
13,500
China
3.55%
11,505
Brazil
3.55%
11,483
Cuba
2.31%
7,479
Haiti
2.10%
6,790
Colombia
1.39%
4,491
Nicaragua
19.57%
63,374
All Others
100.00%
323,845
Total

In FY 2006, the top 10 nationalities accounted for approximately 80 percent of all
proceedings completed as shown in Figure 6. A total of 215 nationalities were represented
in the FY 2006 Immigration Judge completions. Mexico and Central American countries
are consistently among the predominant nationalities of immigration court completions.
Table 5 provides information on the top 25 nationalities each year for the period FY 2002
through FY 2006. For the five-year period, nine of the top ten nationalities remained the
same: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, China, Colombia, and
Brazil.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

E1

Table 5 - Court Proceedings Completed by Nationality
Top 25 Nationalities: FY 2002 - FY 2006
Rank

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

1

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

2

El Salvador

El Salvador

Honduras

El Salvador

El Salvador

3

Honduras

Honduras

El Salvador

Honduras

Honduras

4

China

China

Guatemala

Brazil

Guatemala

5

Guatemala

Guatemala

China

Guatemala

China

6

Colombia

Colombia

Brazil

China

Brazil

7

Brazil

Brazil

Colombia

Colombia

Cuba

8

Haiti

Haiti

Haiti

Cuba

Haiti

9

Dominican
Republic

Dominican
Republic

Cuba

Haiti

Colombia

10

Cuba

Cuba

Dominican
Republic

Dominican
Republic

Nicaragua

11

India

India

India

Nicaragua

Dominican
Republic

12

Ecuador

Pakistan

Indonesia

India

India

13

Albania

Albania

Pakistan

Indonesia

Indonesia

14

Jamaica

Indonesia

Jamaica

Pakistan

Pakistan

15

Pakistan

Jamaica

Albania

Ecuador

Jamaica

16

Nicaragua

Philippines

Nicaragua

Jamaica

Ecuador

17

Peru

Nicaragua

Ecuador

Albania

Venezuela

18

Philippines

Ecuador

Philippines

Philippines

Peru

19

Armenia

Peru

Peru

Peru

Philippines

20

Indonesia

Armenia

Russia

Venezuela

Albania

21

Russia

Russia

Egypt

Nigeria

Nigeria

22

Nigeria

Egypt

Armenia

Russia

Costa Rica

23

Egypt

Nigeria

Nigeria

Canada

Russia

24

Iran

Iran

Iran

Armenia

Egypt

25

Canada

Canada

Canada

Egypt

Canada

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

E2

Immigration Courts:
Proceedings Completed by Language
Figure 7 below shows a breakdown of FY 2002 Immigration Court proceedings
completed by language. Of 211 languages spoken in court proceedings during FY 2002,
83 percent were in the following five languages: Spanish, English, Mandarin, Foo Chow, and
Creole.
Figure 8 below shows comparable data for FY 2006. Although four of the top five
languages were the same, there was more diversity in languages in FY 2006. A total of 252
different languages were spoken in court proceedings in the Immigration Courts during FY
2006. The top five languages accounted for 90 percent of the proceedings completed in FY
2006.
FY 2006 highlights include:
•

Spanish language cases were 70 percent of the total caseload, an increase of 9
percent since FY 2002.

•

In the “Other” category, Foo Chow, Russian, and Arabic represented the three most
frequently spoken languages.

•

The number of different languages used in court proceedings has increased by
19 percent over FY 2002.

FY 2006 Court Proceedings Completed
By Language

FY 2002 Court Proceedings Completed
By Language

Other (10.23%)
Creole (2.06%)
Mandarin (2.81%)
Portuguese (3.25%)

Other (17.06%)
Creole (2.44%)
Foo Chow (2.76%)
Mandarin (3.47%)

English (13.22%)

English (11.64%)
Spanish (61.06%)

Spanish (70.01%)

Figure 7

Figure 8

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

F1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Immigration Courts:
Proceedings Completed by Representation Status
The Immigration and Nationality Act states that individuals in removal proceedings
before an Immigration Judge may be represented by counsel, but at no expense to the
Government. Prior to representing an alien before the Immigration Court, representatives
must file a Notice of Appearance with the court.
Many individuals in removal proceedings are indigent and cannot afford a private
attorney. Some seek free or pro bono representation, while others proceed without counsel
on their own, or pro se. Of great concern to EOIR is the large number of individuals
appearing pro se. Immigration Judges, in order to ensure that such individuals understand
the nature of the proceedings, as well as their rights and responsibilities, must take extra care
and spend additional time explaining this information. An individual may ask for a continuance
of a proceeding to obtain counsel.
As shown in Figure 9, less than half of the aliens whose proceedings were completed
during the period FY 2002 – FY 2006 were represented. The percentage of represented
aliens for FY 2002 to FY 2006 ranged from 35 percent to 48 percent. However, the significant
drop in representation rate in FY 2005 and FY 2006 is directly related to the increased failures
to appear over this same period. The representation rate for FY 2005 and FY 2006 would be
48 percent if failure to appear completions were removed from the data.

Cour t Pr oce e dings Com ple te d
Pe r ce ntage of Re pr e s e nte d Cas e s
100%
80%

Representation in Immigration Courts
60%

45%

48%

45%

35%

Represented

35%

40%
20%
0%
FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

Unrepresented

Total

FY 02

102,934

125,488

228,422

FY 03

120,122

130,701

250,823

FY 04

117,681

142,182

259,863

FY 05

110,018

204,599

314,617

FY 06

113,140

210,705

323,845

FY 06

Figure 9

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

G1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Immigration Courts:
Failures to Appear
When an alien fails to appear for a hearing, the Immigration Judge may conduct an
in absentia (in absence of) hearing and order the alien removed from the United States.
Before the Immigration Judge orders the alien removed in absentia, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Chief Counsel must establish by clear, unequivocal,
and convincing evidence that the alien is removable. Further, the Immigration Judge must
be satisfied that notice of time and place of the hearing were provided to the alien or the
alien’s representative. A failure to appear does not always result in an in absentia order.
In some instances, the Immigration Judge may administratively close the case without
ordering the alien removed in absentia. Since most administrative closures relate to
failures to appear, we have included those figures in calculating the failure to appear rates
below.
Figure 10, on the following page, compares Immigration Judge decisions and
administrative closures with failures to appear. Of the Immigration Judge decisions
rendered in FY 2006, 39 percent involved aliens who had failed to appear. Failure to
appear rates were fairly consistent each year from FY 2002 to FY 2004. In FY 2005 the
rates nearly doubled and remained at this level in FY 2006. The large increase in the
failure to appear rate had a direct effect on the total completions for the fiscal year.
In FY 2005, 106,841 aliens failed to appear compared to the previous high in FY
2004 of 54, 263, this represents a 97 percent increase. It should also be noted that 52
percent (55,893) of the failure to appear completions in FY 2005 occurred in Harlingen and
San Antonio, Texas, compared to 41 percent (45,268) in FY 2006.
The immigration court workload is dependent on actions taken by the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS’ long standing policy known as “catch and release”
was designed to release non-Mexican aliens apprehended at entry on their own
recognizance. This policy resulted from DHS’ and the now defunct INS’ insufficient capacity
to detain all aliens apprehended at entry. In recent years, due to this policy, the failure to
appear rate has increased dramatically at the immigration courts. This has caused a
subsequent increase in in absentia removal orders being issued by the immigration judges.
In August 2006, DHS abolished this policy.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

H1

Overall Failure to Appear Rates
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Percent Failure to Appear

Figure 10

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Overall Failure to Appear Rates
Failures to Appear
IJ Decisions &
In Absentia Administrative Total Failures to
Admin.
Closures
Appear
Closures
Orders
178,025
45,119
7,803
37,316
205,239
44,246
7,298
36,948
216,130
54,263
6,856
47,407
270,639
106,841
5,847
100,994
280,494
109,713
6,879
102,834

Failure to
Appear
Rate
25%
22%
25%
39%
39%

The following figures show EOIR data on failures to appear by detention status: nondetained aliens and aliens released on bond or recognizance. Failures to appear for
detained cases occur infrequently, generally only because of illness or transportation
problems, and are not broken out in the following figures.

Figure 11 shows a comparison of the number of failures to appear with the number
of Immigration Judge decisions for non-detained aliens. The non-detained category is
made up of aliens who were never detained. The failure to appear rate for this population
has increased each year from FY 2002 to FY 2005. From FY 2005 to FY 2006 the rate
stayed the same, which is consistent with the overall rate depicted in Figure 10.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

H2

Failure to Appear Rates for
Non-Detained Aliens
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Percent Failure to Appear

Figure 11

Failure to Appear Rates for Non-Detained Aliens
IJ Decisions &
Failures to Appear
Admin Closures
Number % of Total
73,919
38%
28,043
FY 02
91,511
32%
29,526
FY 03
108,727
40%
43,655
FY 04
162,276
60%
97,858
FY 05
168,285
60%
100,551
FY 06

Failures to appear for aliens released on bond or on their own recognizance are
shown in Figure 12; for the five-year period, the failure to appear rate for these cases has
decreased annually from FY 2002 to FY 2006. During the same period the failure to appear
rates for non-detained aliens has increased.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

H3

Failure to Appear Rates for
Released Aliens
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Figure 12

Failure to Appear Rates for Released Aliens
IJ Decisions &
Failures to Appear
Number % of Total Admin Closures
32,077
49%
15,794
FY 02
33,068
41%
13,439
FY 03
25,790
37%
9,426
FY 04
21,966
36%
7,883
FY 05
21,992
36%
7,894
FY 06

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

H4

Immigration Courts:
Asylum Cases Received and Completed
An important form of relief that aliens may request is asylum. Aliens request asylum
if they fear harm if returned to their native country or if they have suffered harm in the past.
To be granted asylum, an alien must demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution based on the alien’s race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, and/or
membership in a particular social group.
There are two ways that aliens may request asylum: “affirmatively,” by completing
an asylum application and filing it with a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Asylum
Office; or “defensively” by requesting asylum before an Immigration Judge. Aliens who file
affirmatively with DHS, but whose requests for asylum are not granted, may be placed in
removal proceedings and referred to the appropriate Immigration Court for further review
of the case.
Immigration Court Asylum Receipts
80000

60000

40000

20000

0

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

Affirmative

FY 05

FY 06

Defensive

Figure 13

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Immigration Court Asylum Receipts
Affirmative Defensive Unknown
58
19,516
55,138
116
19,964
47,159
124
18,232
38,996
162
16,619
35,880
548
16,780
37,104

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

I1

Total
74,712
67,239
57,352
52,661
54,432

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

As shown in Figure 14 below, asylum receipts declined by 30 percent from FY 2002
to FY 2005. From FY 2005 to FY 2006 receipts have increased slightly.
Asylum completions increased by 23 percent from FY 2002 to FY 2003. From FY
2003 to FY 2006 completions have declined by 15 percent.

Asylum Cases
Receipts and Completions
75,000
70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000

50,000

FY 02

FY 03

Receipts

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Completions

Figure 14
Asylum Receipts and Completions
Receipts Completions
55,355
74,712
FY 02
68,125
67,239
FY 03
66,313
57,352
FY 04
60,654
52,661
FY 05
58,040
54,432
FY 06

Table 6, shown on page I3, provides information on FY 2006 asylum receipts and
completions by Immigration Court. In FY 2006, the Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New York,
NY; and San Francisco, CA Immigration Courts received 54 percent of asylum filings. In
FY 2006, half of the Immigration Courts had more receipts than completions. However, all
four of the largest courts completed more cases than they received and overall completions
outnumbered receipts by over 3,600 cases.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

I2

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Table 6 - Asylum Receipts and Completions by Court for FY 2006
Immigration Court
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BRADENTON, FLORIDA
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SAN PEDRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

I3

Receipts
2,163
1,295
1,304
72
424
1,377
60
91
1,882
644
454
377
95
103
112
79
289
145
74
126
1,133
122
235
206
71
1,234
31
513
185
483
6,993
98
651
8,142
71
10,475
1,402
203
2,194
808
374
310
144
388
490
4,029
212
1,553
136
63
141
176
54,432

Completions
1,690
1,216
1,735
65
580
1,347
283
136
2,037
581
554
740
79
107
110
71
293
143
69
119
480
172
249
177
68
1,010
28
486
216
411
8,301
79
709
9,499
73
10,527
1,581
229
2,219
1,641
506
203
156
318
570
4,557
199
956
67
57
184
157
58,040

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Immigration Courts:
Asylum Grants by Nationality
This section provides information on asylum grants by nationality. Figure 15
displays the top ten nationalities granted asylum in FY 2006. In FY 2006, the top 10
nationalities accounted for 60 percent of all asylum grants. A total of 148 nationalities were
represented among cases granted asylum in FY 2006. Table 7 provides information for
comparative purposes on the top nationalities granted asylum for the period FY 2002 to FY
2006. Seven nationalities were represented among the top ten nationalities granted asylum
each year during the five-year period: China, Colombia, Albania, India, Haiti, Armenia, and
Indonesia. For more complete information on asylum data by nationality see:
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/FY06AsyStats.pdf.

FY 2006 Asylum Grants
By Nationality
China (30.44%)
All Others (39.84%)

Armenia (2.17%)
Indonesia (2.35%)
Ethiopia (2.56%)
Cameroon (2.68%)

Colombia (5.84%)
Haiti (4.27%)
Albania (3.79%)
India (3.37%)
Guinea (2.68%)

Figure 15
FY 2006 Asylum Grants by Nationality
Nationality
Cases
% of Total
China
4,061
30.44%
Colombia
779
5.84%
Haiti
570
4.27%
Albania
506
3.79%
India
450
3.37%
Guinea
358
2.68%
Cameroon
358
2.68%
Ethiopia
342
2.56%
Indonesia
314
2.35%
Armenia
289
2.17%
All Others
5,316
39.84%
Total
13,343
100.00%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

J1

Table 7 - Asylum Grants by Nationality
Top 25 Nationalities: FY 2002 - FY 2006

Rank

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

1

China

China

China

China

China

2

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

3

Albania

Albania

Albania

Haiti

Haiti

4

India

India

Haiti

Albania

Albania

5

Haiti

Haiti

India

Indonesia

India

6

Armenia

Armenia

Indonesia

India

Guinea

7

Russia

Russia

Russia

Armenia

Cameroon

8

Indonesia

Indonesia

Armenia

Ethiopia

Ethiopia

9

Iraq

Egypt

Cameroon

Cameroon

Indonesia

10

Somalia

Ethiopia

Egypt

Guinea

Armenia

11

Ethiopia

Pakistan

Ethiopia

Russia

Venezuela

12

Egypt

Iran

Guinea

Egypt

Egypt

13

Iran

Iraq

Mauritania

Mauritania

Mauritania

14

Pakistan

Cameroon

Iran

Yugoslavia

Russia

15

Yugoslavia

Mauritania

Yugoslavia

Soviet Union

Iraq

16

Liberia

Yugoslavia

Guatemala

Burma (Myanmar)

Soviet Union

17

Sri Lanka

Guatemala

Pakistan

Venezuela

Pakistan

18

Congo

Guinea

Bangladesh

Iran

Nepal

19

Burma (Myanmar)

Somalia

Burma (Myanmar)

Pakistan

Burma (Myanmar)

20

Mauritania

Liberia

Congo

Guatemala

Guatemala

21

Cameroon

Congo

Sierra Leone

Bangladesh

Ivory Coast
(Cote D’Ivoire)

22

Guatemala

Burma (Myanmar)

Iraq

Ivory Coast
(Cote D’Ivoire)

Yugoslavia

23

Sierra Leone

Peru

Peru

Togo

Togo

24

Bangladesh

Sierra Leone

Fiji

Uzebekistan

Iran

25

Ukraine

Bangladesh

Nepal

Iraq

Somalia

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

J2

Immigration Courts:
Disposition of Asylum Cases
During removal proceedings, an alien may request asylum as relief from removal.
The Immigration Judge must then decide whether to deny or grant an alien’s application for
asylum. If the asylum applicant fails to appear for a scheduled court hearing, the application
is considered abandoned. In other instances, the asylum applicant chooses to withdraw his
or her application for asylum. EOIR tracks each of these possible outcomes as completed
cases: grants, denials, withdrawals, and abandoned applications for asylum.
A substantial number of closed cases do not fall into one of the four categories listed
above, and are counted as “other” asylum completions, e.g., change of venue to another
court. Further, in some instances, an alien with a pending asylum claim may apply for and
be granted some other type of relief besides asylum, and this is also recorded as an “other”
completion.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
provided that refugee status or asylum could be granted to as many as 1,000 applicants
annually whose claims were based on coercive population control (CPC). IIRIRA amended
the Immigration and Nationality Act to include opposition to coercive population control
methods to be considered as a political opinion. Immigration Judges began granting asylum
based on CPC in FY 1997. An alien who was eligible for a grant of asylum based on
coercive population control methods received a grant conditioned on an administrative
determination by the Department of Homeland Security that a number was available.
Effective May 11, 2005, under the Real ID Act, the annual cap was lifted on asylum grants
based on coercive population control methods.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

K1

Figure 16 provides the asylum grant rate for the past five years. The grant rate is
calculated as a percentage of asylum claims decided on the merits, i.e., grants (including
conditional grants) and denials. The number of aliens granted asylum increased from FY
2002 to FY 2003 but the grant rate remained 37 percent. From FY 2002 to FY 2005 the
grant rate stayed fairly consistent. The grant rate showed a significant increase from FY
2005 to FY 2006. If the grant rate were calculated as a percentage of all 58,040 asylum
completions (as opposed to only the claims decided on the merits), it would be significantly
lower, e.g., 23 percent for FY 2006 as opposed to 45 percent.

Im m igration Courts
Asylum Grant Rate
100%

80%

60%
45%
40%

37%

37%

38%

38%

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Asylum Grant Rate
Grants
Denials Grant Rate
10,980
18,387
37%
13,381
22,414
37%
13,019
20,867
38%
11,759
19,167
38%
13,343
16,556
45%

20%

0%
FY 06

Figure 16

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

K2

There is some difference in the grant rates depending on whether the asylum
application was filed affirmatively or defensively. From FY 2002 to FY 2006, grant rates for
affirmative asylum claims were higher than grant rates for defensive claims. Figures 17 and
18 show the grant rates for affirmative and defensive asylum claims. In a few instances,
(187 grants and 161 denials) data was incomplete, and it was unclear whether the claim
was affirmative or defensive.

Im m igration Courts
Affirm ative Grant Rate
100%
80%
60%

44%

44%

45%

44%

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

51%

40%
20%

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Immigration Court
Affirmative Grant Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
7,665
9,903
44%
9,915 12,792
44%
9,848 12,098
45%
8,711 11,210
44%
9,516
9,052
51%

0%
FY 06

Figure 17

Imm igration Courts
Defensive Grant Rate
100%
80%
60%
40%

34%

28%

26%

26%

28%

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

20%

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Immigration Court
Defensive Grant Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
3,293 8,464
28%
3,406 9,610
26%
3,134 8,731
26%
3,015 7,919
28%
3,792 7,451
34%

0%
FY 06

Figure 18

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

K3

Figure 19 illustrates graphically all asylum case completions. The number of denials
increased from FY 2002 to FY 2003, but have decreased since FY 2003. The number of
asylum grants increased from FY 2002 to FY 2003 then declined from FY 2003 to FY 2005.
There was a slight increase in grants from FY 2005 to FY 2006. In FY 2006, the number
of asylum grants was 22 percent higher than the number of grants in FY 2002.

Asylum Completions
By Disposition
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

Grants

Denials

Abandoned

Other

FY 05

FY 06

Withdrawn

Figure 19

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Grants
10,980
13,381
13,019
11,759
13,343

Asylum Completions by Disposition
Denials Withdrawn Abandoned Other
18,387
8,546
4,241 13,201
22,414
14,484
4,308 13,538
20,867
14,664
3,804 13,959
19,167
13,436
3,649 12,643
16,556
10,351
3,924 13,866

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Total
55,355
68,125
66,313
60,654
58,040

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

K4

An applicant for asylum also is an applicant for withholding or removal under
section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Whereas asylum is a
discretionary form of relief, withholding of removal is a mandatory form of relief that the
Immigration Judge must grant if the applicant is found to have a clear probability of
persecution in his or her country of origin, based on, race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, provided no mandatory bars
apply. This form of protection fulfills United States’ treaty obligations as signatory to the
1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Protocol). The
1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee
Convention) and the 1967 Protocol require contracting states to ensure that no refugee
be returned to a country where his or her life would be threatened due to one of the five
protected grounds for refugee status.
Asylum seekers can only apply for withholding of removal in an immigration court.
A determination regarding this form of protection is made only if the applicant is denied
asylum. Applicants granted this form of relief may not be returned to the country of
feared persecution. However, they may be sent to a third country provided that country
will allow their entry.

Figure 19-A below depicts the Asylum Withholding Grant Rate. Cases that had
grants for both Asylum and Withholding were omitted for withholding because they have
previously been counted as an asylum grant.

Im m igr ation Cour ts
As ylum Withholding Gr ant Rate
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

6%

8%

10%

13%

5%

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Immigration Court
Asylum Withholding Grant Rate
Grants Denials Grant Rate
FY 02
902
18,818
5%
FY 03
1,357
22,937
6%
FY 04
1,768
21,313
8%
FY 05
2,105
19,501
10%
FY 06
2,561
16,792
13%

Figure 19-A

Table 8, on the following page, provides information on the FY 2006 asylum grant
rate for each individual Immigration Court.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

K5

Table 8 - FY 2006 Asylum Grant Rate by Immigration Court

Immigration Court

Denials

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BRADENTON COUNTY JAIL, FLORIDA
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SAN PEDRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

439
224
616
38
227
467
122
45
388
139
195
404
30
44
46
21
112
102
3
71
29
8
103
24
36
333
10
279
109
78
1,516
19
193
4,190
24
2,152
508
66
520
580
89
57
40
97
164
997
66
357
1
17
85
76
16,556

Grants
552
44
619
2
107
328
35
17
415
60
155
110
32
17
23
8
63
1
0
13
4
43
53
83
3
73
8
69
44
60
1,110
7
152
858
23
5,269
336
22
545
182
194
25
34
47
193
985
44
182
54
0
24
16
13,343

Grant Rate
56%
16%
50%
5%
32%
41%
22%
27%
52%
30%
44%
21%
52%
28%
33%
28%
36%
1%
0%
15%
12%
84%
34%
78%
8%
18%
44%
20%
29%
43%
42%
27%
44%
17%
49%
71%
40%
25%
51%
24%
69%
30%
46%
33%
54%
50%
40%
34%
98%
0%
22%
17%
45%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

K6

Immigration Courts:
Expedited Asylum Cases
There are two ways that aliens may request asylum: “affirmatively,” by completing
an asylum application and filing it with a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Asylum
Office; or “defensively” by requesting asylum before an Immigration Judge. Aliens who file
affirmatively with DHS , but whose requests for asylum are not granted, are placed in
removal proceedings and referred to the appropriate Immigration Court for a hearing.
Asylum regulations implemented in 1995 called for asylum applications to be
processed within 180 days after filing. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 reiterated that time frame and calls for the
administrative adjudication of an asylum application within 180 days of the application filing
date, absent exceptional circumstances. This process is time sensitive because the asylum
applicant may not apply for employment authorization until 150 days after filing, and DHS
then has 30 days to grant or deny employment authorization. The applicant can only be
granted employment authorization if the asylum application has not been decided within
180 days of filing, provided there are no delays caused by the alien. Consequently,
expedited processing of asylum applications occurs when (1) an alien files “affirmatively”
at a DHS Asylum Office and the application is referred to EOIR within 75 days of filing;
or (2) an alien files an asylum application “defensively” with EOIR.
As shown in Figure 20 below, the number of expedited asylum cases have
decreased each year from FY 2002 to FY 2006. From FY 2002 to FY 2005 both expedited
asylum receipts and total asylum receipts consistently decreased.

Expe dite d As ylum Re ce ipts Com pare d to
Total As ylum Re ce ipts

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
0

10 ,0 0 0

2 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 ,0 0 0 4 0 ,0 0 0 50 ,0 0 0

6 0 ,0 0 0 70 ,0 0 0 8 0 ,0 0 0

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Expedited Asylum Receipts
Number of Expedited Total Asylum
Asylum Receipts
Receipts
57,379
74,712
49,731
67,239
36,933
57,352
33,323
52,661
32,483
54,432

Num ber of Expedited As ylum Receipts
Total As ylum Receipts

Figure 20

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

L1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Depicted in Figure 21 below are the number of receipts and completions for
expedited asylum cases between FY 2002 and FY 2006.

Expedited Asylum
Receipts and Completions

60000

55000

50000

45000

40000

35000

30000

FY 02

FY 04

FY 03

Receipts

FY 05

FY 06

Completions

Figure 21

Expedited Asylum Receipts and Completions
FY 2002 - 2006
Completions
Receipts
39,473
57,379
FY 02
50,077
49,731
FY 03
47,008
36,933
FY 04
42,321
33,323
FY 05
38,944
32,483
FY 06

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

L2

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Immigration Courts:
Convention Against Torture
In 1999, the Department of Justice implemented regulations regarding the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (Convention Against Torture) (CAT). Under these regulations, aliens in
removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings may claim that they “more likely than not”
will be tortured if removed from the United States. The regulation provides jurisdiction to
the Immigration Courts to hear these claims, and provides jurisdiction to the BIA to hear
appeals from the Immigration Courts’ decisions regarding CAT claims.
There are two forms of protection under the 1999 regulations:
•

The regulation established a new form of withholding of removal which is granted
to an alien who establishes that he or she would be tortured in the proposed
country of removal.

•

The second protection concerns aliens who would be tortured in the country of
removal, but who are barred from withholding of removal. These aliens may be
granted deferral of removal, a less permanent form of protection than withholding
of removal, and one that is more easily and quickly terminated if it becomes
possible to remove the alien.

As shown in Table 9 below, the Immigration Courts adjudicated 31,364 CAT
applications during FY 2006. Of those, 578 CAT cases were granted, the majority of which
were granted withholding.
The grant rate for CAT cases was approximately 4 percent in FY 2006. This
percentage is calculated based only on grants and denials, and does not consider
abandoned applications, withdrawn applications, or other case closures.

Table 9 - FY 2006 Convention Against Torture Cases by Disposition
Granted
Withholding

405

Deferral

173

Denied

Other

15,905

7,265

Withdrawn

Abandoned

6,796

820

Total

Total

578

31,364

Table 10 on the following page shows a breakdown of CAT completions by
Immigration Courts. The Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New York City, NY; and San
Francisco, CA Immigration Courts combined completed approximately 59 percent of the
total FY 2006 CAT cases.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

M1

Table 10 - FY 2006 Convention Against Torture Completions by Court
Immigration Court
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BRADENTON COUNTY JAIL, FLORIDA
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SAN PEDRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Completions
692
337
855
51
482
710
132
99
478
177
259
812
72
71
45
18
290
116
68
84
234
15
134
94
54
223
18
337
185
144
4,576
41
407
6,207
41
5,641
992
181
1,213
1,076
124
77
37
101
270
2,068
208
468
1
48
165
136
31,364

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

M2

Immigration Courts:
Proceedings Completed with Applications for Relief
Some aliens who are found deportable may be eligible for relief from removal.
Aliens apply for various forms of relief by completing the appropriate application. Specific
types of relief for aliens in proceedings are discussed in other sections of this Year Book.
Asylum is addressed in more detail in Tabs I, J, K, and L. Other applications for relief are
addressed in Tab R. Tab M provides information about protection afforded certain aliens
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. For the purpose of this Year Book,
voluntary departure (discussed in Tab Q) is not considered an application for relief.
Figure 22 provides information on the percent of cases where the alien filed an
application for relief. Generally, cases with no applications for relief are processed faster
and expend fewer court resources.
Im m igration Court Proce e dings
Pe rce nt Com ple tions w ith Applications
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

31%

36%

FY 02

FY 01

34%

26%

26%

20%
10%
0%
FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Table 11 on

Figure 22

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Court Completions (Proceedings) with Applications for Relief
With Applications Percent with Without Applications Percent Without
Applications
Applications
71,726
31%
156,696
69%
89,588
36%
161,235
64%
89,406
34%
170,457
66%
83,191
26%
231,426
74%
84,280
26%
239,565
74%

Total
228,422
250,823
259,863
314,617
323,845

page N2 shows the number and percentage of proceedings completed with applications
for relief at each Immigration Court in FY 2006. Typically, courts along the United States
border, courts co-located with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detention
facilities, and courts which handle Institutional Hearing Program cases involving criminal
aliens receive fewer applications for relief. Courts with a low percentage of applications for
relief (10 percent or less) are shown in red. Courts where 60 percent or more of the
completions involved applications for relief are shown in blue.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

N1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Table 11 - FY 2006 Immigration Court Completions (Proceedings) With Applications for Relief

Immigration Court
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BRADENTON COUNTY JAIL, FLORIDA
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SAN PEDRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL
Courts with a low percentage of applications for relief

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Total
Completions
8,091
8,787
5,628
782
2,833
8,460
2,170
2,273
12,339
6,987
5,140
3,412
6,161
3,351
4,916
4,822
1,388
12,174
516
4,302
2,220
31,321
2,710
562
3,319
13,365
1,848
2,236
7,086
2,737
17,274
2,002
3,017
22,988
1,359
19,627
6,409
3,395
4,798
4,155
3,830
1,261
1,179
27,848
4,940
10,671
2,910
8,135
1,884
786
1,263
2,178
323,845

# of Completions With
Applications
2,755
1,408
2,305
88
815
1,941
615
329
2,978
1,190
964
1,251
269
364
236
266
344
566
84
203
629
480
513
227
156
1,821
266
553
463
722
10,783
134
898
15,053
126
12,101
2,223
414
2,504
2,001
972
358
264
713
2,000
6,054
384
1,603
122
108
365
299
84,280

Precent With
Applications
34%
16%
41%
11%
29%
23%
28%
14%
24%
17%
19%
37%
4%
11%
5%
6%
25%
5%
16%
5%
28%
2%
19%
40%
5%
14%
14%
25%
7%
26%
62%
7%
30%
65%
9%
62%
35%
12%
52%
48%
25%
28%
22%
3%
40%
57%
13%
20%
6%
14%
29%
14%
26%

Courts with a high percentage of applications for relief

N2

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Immigration Courts:
Proceedings Completed for Detained Cases
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has authority to detain an alien pending a decision on whether or not the alien is
removable. Immigration Courts conduct hearings for both detained and non-detained
aliens, and EOIR maintains data on the custody status of aliens in proceedings.
Detention locations include DHS Service Processing Centers (SPCs), DHS
contract detention facilities, state and local government jails, and Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
institutions. For the purpose of this Year Book, Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) cases
are considered detained cases (IHP is discussed further in Tab P). Figure 23 below
provides a comparison of detained completions to total proceedings completed. Although
the number of detained completions has increased each year since FY 2002, the percent
of detained completions decreased from 34 percent to 29 percent.

Immigration Court Proceedings
Completed: Detained and Total
FY 02
FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06
0

50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000

Proceedings for Detained Aliens
Total Proceedings Completed

Figure 23

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Immigration Court (Proceedings) Completions
Proceedings Completed for Detained Aliens (Including IHP)
Total Proceedings Percent
Proceedings
Detained
Completed
for Detained Aliens
34%
228,422
77,122
34%
250,823
85,200
33%
259,863
86,594
29%
314,617
91,033
29%
323,845
95,096

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

O1

Table 12 on the following page provides information, by Immigration Court, on FY
2006 detained completions. The Immigration Courts in Chicago, IL; East Mesa, CA; El
Paso SPC, TX; Eloy, AZ; Lancaster, CA; and Seattle, WA each completed more than
4,000 proceedings in detained cases in FY 2006. Overall, Immigration Courts located in
three border States – Texas, California, and Arizona – accounted for 60 percent of the
detained completions in FY 2006. Courts in those three states are highlighted in blue in
Table 13.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

O2

Table 12 - FY 2006 Immigration Court Completions (Proceedings) for Detained Cases
Immigration Court
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
BATAVIA SPC, NEW YORK
BLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BRADENTON COUNTY JAIL, FLORIDA
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
EAST MESA, CALIFORNIA
EL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
EL PASO SPC, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEY
ELOY, ARIZONA
FISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
FLORENCE SPC, ARIZONA
GUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICO
HARLINGEN, TEXAS
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
HOUSTON SPC, TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA
KROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDA
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
LOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXAS
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
OAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANA
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
PORTLAND, OREGON
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
SAN PEDRO SPC, CALIFORNIA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
TUCSON, ARIZONA
ULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORK
VARICK SPC, NEW YORK
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
TOTAL

Completions
1,641
1,836
335
614
1,388
1,021
646
67
5,649
2,360
2,485
978
5,843
3,158
4,621
636
1,031
11,619
516
3,388
580
1,537
460
247
2,665
646
1,315
1,747
6,685
1,177
152
1,698
517
773
270
65
916
2,845
217
303
900
428
507
2,040
1,706
2,150
2,124
5,238
1,654
784
970
1,948
95,096

Immigration Courts in U.S./Mexico Border States

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

O3

Immigration Courts:
Institutional Hearing Program Case Processing
The Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) is a cooperative effort between EOIR; the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and various Federal, State, and municipal
corrections agencies. The goal of the IHP is to complete proceedings for incarcerated
criminal aliens serving federal or state sentences prior to their release from prison or jail.
This allows DHS to remove aliens with final orders expeditiously after release from
incarceration.
In FY 2006, DHS filed charging documents with the Immigration Courts for
incarcerated aliens in 75 different institutions. Immigration Judges and court staff traveled
to these institutions to conduct IHP hearings.
Figure 24 provides information on IHP receipts and completions for FY 2002 - FY
2006. IHP receipts declined by 15 percent from FY 2002 to FY 2006, including a 20
percent decrease from FY 2005 to FY 2006. IHP completions decreased by 22 percent
from FY 2002 to FY 2006. Both receipts and completions peaked in FY 2005.

IHP Cases
Received and Completed
12,000
11,000

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

10,000
9,000

IHP Cases
Receipts Completions
8,589
9,632
7,634
7,687
7,592
7,858
9,141
9,012
7,295
7,559

8,000
7,000
6,000

FY 02

FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
Receipts
Completions

Figure 24

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

P1

Table 13 provides a breakdown of IHP completions by disposition – either through an
Immigration Judge decision, or through an “other” completion, such as an administrative
closure or change of venue.
Table 13
IHP Completions by Disposition
FY 02
Total Decisions in IHP Cases

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

7,161

5,974

5,881

7,360

6,021

6,769

5,711

5,611

7,103

5,764

322

187

221

208

191

Relief

62

66

40

40

53

Other

8

10

9

9

13

Other Completions

2,471

1,713

1,977

1,652

1,538

Total Completions

9,632

7,687

7,858

9,012

7,559

Removal
Termination

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

P2

Immigration Courts:
Immigration Judge Grants of Voluntary Departure
Under certain circumstances, an Immigration Judge may allow an alien to depart the
United States voluntarily. An alien allowed to depart voluntarily concedes removability, but
is not barred from future re-entry. Failure to depart within the time granted subjects the
alien to a fine, and makes the alien ineligible for voluntary departure and several forms of
relief for a ten-year period.
Prior to the completion of proceedings, aliens may request voluntary departure in
lieu of removal. The Immigration Judge has discretion to grant up to 120 days for the alien
to depart voluntarily if the alien is able to pay for his or her removal, and if he or she is not
removable as an aggravated felon or a terrorist.
Immigration Judges also have discretion in certain cases to grant voluntary
departure in lieu of removal at the conclusion of proceedings. If the judge finds that the
alien has been present in the United States for one year immediately preceding the
issuance of the Notice to Appear, has been a person of good moral character for the past
five years, is not removable under aggravated felony or terrorist grounds, and has the
means to depart the United States and intends to do so, the Immigration Judge may grant
up to 60 days for the alien to depart voluntarily. Aliens allowed to depart voluntarily are not
barred from re-entry.
Voluntary departure is considered a form of removal, not a type of relief.
Immigration Judge decisions on proceedings (as discussed in Tab D) include grants of
voluntary departure under removal. Table 14 shows the percentage of removal orders that
are grants of voluntary departure.
Table 14 - IJ Removal Decisions Compared to Voluntary Departure Decisions

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

Total Removal
Decisions
135,232
155,145
164,451
222,382
220,057

Voluntary Departure
Decisions
20,169
28,250
27,413
24,820
22,214

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Percent Voluntary
Departure Decisions
15%
18%
17%
11%
10%

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Q1

Immigration Courts:
Applications for Relief other than Asylum
Although asylum is the most common form of relief requested before an Immigration
Judge, other forms of relief are also granted to eligible aliens. (See Tabs I-L for information
on asylum, and Tab M for information on protection granted under the Convention Against
Torture.)
This tab describes other forms of relief such as adjustment of status; suspension and
cancellation; and Section 212(c) relief. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 provided a new form of relief called cancellation of
removal. Cancellation of removal was intended to replace the former Immigration and
Nationality Act Section 212(c) waiver and suspension of deportation. Table 16 on page R3
provides information on relief granted under the following provisions:
•

Adjustment of Status is a type of relief from deportation, removal, or exclusion, for
an alien who is eligible for lawful permanent resident status based on a visa petition
approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Normally, the visa petition has
been filed by a United States citizen spouse.

•

Prior to the passage of IIRIRA, Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
provided relief from deportation for long-term lawful permanent residents who had
committed a crime. In order to be eligible to apply for 212(c) relief, an applicant had
to show that he or she had been a lawful permanent resident for at least seven years,
had served less than five years of a sentence if the underlying crime was classified
as an aggravated felony, had been rehabilitated, and had no other criminal record.
If an applicant in exclusion or deportation proceedings is able to establish these
factors, the immigration judge has discretion to grant relief under 212(c).

•

Suspension of Deportation is a another pre-IIRIRA form of discretionary relief.
Certain aliens in deportation proceedings who have maintained continuous physical
presence in the United States for specific periods of time, and have met the other
statutory requirements may be granted suspension of deportation and adjustment of
status to that of lawful permanent resident. The total number of adjustments to lawful
permanent resident status under suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal
is limited to a 4,000 annual cap under IIRIRA. Applicants for suspension of
deportation who applied for this relief prior to the implementation of IIRIRA, or who
meet certain conditions of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief
Act (NACARA) are not subject to the cap.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

R1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

•

As noted above, Cancellation of Removal is a form of relief provided by IIRIRA.
There are two IIRIRA provisions addressing cancellation of removal:
•

Permanent Residents. Under the first provision, a lawful permanent resident
facing removal on criminal grounds who has been lawfully admitted for
permanent residence for at least five years, and who has resided continuously
in the United States for seven years after a lawful admission may request
cancellation, provided he or she has no aggravated felony convictions.

•

Nonpermanent Residents. Under the second provision, applicants physically
present in the United States for a continuous period of ten years who have
not been convicted of a criminal offense may seek cancellation of removal and
adjustment of status to permanent resident alien. The applicant must
demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a citizen or
lawful permanent resident alien spouse, parent or child. IIRIRA limits to 4,000
annually the total number of adjustments to lawful permanent resident status
under suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal. Applicants for
cancellation of removal who meet certain conditions are not subject to the
cap.

Table 15 reflects grants of relief under the various provisions described above during
the period FY 2002 - FY 2006.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

R2

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Table 15
Grants of Relief:
Adjustment of Status; 212(c) Waivers; Suspension of Deportation; and Cancellation of Removal

Relief Granted to Lawful
Permanent Residents

Relief Granted to Non-Lawful Permanent Residents
Subject to Annual Cap of 4,000
Grants

Not Subject to Annual Cap of 4,000 Grants

Relief Granted
Under Section
212(c)

Cancellation of
Removal

FY 2002

566

1,793

FY 2003

663

FY 2004

Adjustment of
Status to LPR

Suspension of
Deportation

Cancellation of
Removal

Suspension of
Deportation

Cancellation of
Removal

7,000

513

420

405

1,144

2,139

8,324

346

438

566

2,346

395

2,307

9,417

231

527

257

3,579

FY 2005

237

2,536

9,422

157

436

182

3,095

FY 2006

233

2,978

11,385

140

528

119

3,144

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

R3

Table 15
Grants of Relief:
Adjustment of Status; 212(c) Waivers; Suspension of Deportation; and Cancellation of Removal

Relief Granted to Lawful
Permanent Residents

Relief Granted to Non-Lawful Permanent Residents
Subject to Annual Cap of 4,000
Grants

Not Subject to Annual Cap of 4,000 Grants

Relief Granted
Under Section
212(c)

Cancellation of
Removal

FY 2002

566

1,793

FY 2003

663

FY 2004

Adjustment of
Status to LPR

Suspension of
Deportation

Cancellation of
Removal

Suspension of
Deportation

Cancellation of
Removal

7,000

513

420

405

1,144

2,139

8,324

346

438

566

2,346

395

2,307

9,417

231

527

257

3,579

FY 2005

237

2,536

9,422

157

436

182

3,095

FY 2006

233

2,978

11,385

140

528

119

3,144

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

R3

Board of Immigration Appeals:
Total Cases Received and Completed
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals
from certain decisions rendered by Immigration Judges or certain Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) officials. Published BIA decisions are binding on all DHS
officers and Immigration Judges unless modified or overruled by the Attorney General or
a Federal court. Unpublished decisions of the BIA are binding on the Immigration Judge
or the DHS with regard to the individual case at issue unless overruled or modified by the
Attorney General or a Federal court.
The majority of cases reviewed by the BIA involve decisions made by Immigration
Judges in removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings, and for the purposes of this
Statistical Year Book are referred to as Immigration Judge (IJ) appeals. These appeals are
filed directly with the BIA in Falls Church, VA, and must be filed within 30 days of the IJ
decision.
Other types of cases over which the BIA has jurisdiction include appeals of certain
DHS decisions involving (1) family-based visa petitions adjudicated by DHS officials; (2)
fines and penalties imposed upon carriers for violations of immigration laws; and (3) bonds
set subsequent to an Immigration Judge’s ruling. For the purposes of this Statistical Year
Book, appeals from these DHS decisions are referred to as DHS decision appeals.
As shown in Figure 25 on page S2, BIA case receipts have increased by 14 percent
from FY 2002 to FY 2006. BIA Case completions have decreased by 12 percent from FY
2002 to FY 2006. Completions outnumbered receipts each year from FY 2002 to FY 2006.
Both receipts and completions show a decrease from FY 2005 to FY 2006.
In response to a growing caseload, the BIA has initiated a variety of management
and regulatory improvements to increase efficiency while maintaining due process
guarantees. In late FY 2000, the BIA’s Streamlining Initiative was launched. Published
regulations allowed for noncontroversial cases that met specified criteria to be reviewed
and adjudicated by a single Board Member. In February 2002, the Department of Justice
proposed a regulatory amendment to address additional procedural changes at the BIA.
The regulation, which became final in September 2002, imposes time frames for the
adjudicatory process at the BIA.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

S1

Total BIA Cases
Received and Completed
49000

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

44000
39000
34000

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

Receipts

FY 05

Total BIA Cases
Receipts Completions
47,326
34,834
48,046
42,040
48,705
43,066
46,343
42,727
41,479
39,707

FY 06

Completions

Figure 25
As noted earlier, BIA handles two types of cases: those generated from an IJ
decision, and those generated from a DHS decision. Figures 26 and 27 below provide
information on the types of cases received and completed by the BIA. Appeals of IJ
decisions make up the bulk of the BIA’s work.
BIA Case Receipts
By Source of Appeal
50000

40000

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

30000

20000

10000

0

FY 02

FY 03

Appeals of DHS Decisions

FY 04

FY 05

BIA Case Receipts
Appeals of
Appeals of
DHS Decisions IJ Decisions
33,176
1,658
40,146
1,894
40,136
2,930
38,684
4,043
33,586
6,121

Total
Appeals
34,834
42,040
43,066
42,727
39,707

FY 06

Appeals of IJ Decisions

Figure 26

BIA Case Completions
By Source of Appeal
50000

40000

30000

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

20000
10000
0

FY 02

FY 03

DHS Case Completions

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

BIA Case Completions
IJ Case
DHS Case
Completions Completions
45,231
2,095
46,103
1,943
46,052
2,653
42,188
4,155
36,350
5,129

Total
Appeals
47,326
48,046
48,705
46,343
41,479

IJ Case Completions

Figure 27
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

S2

Board of Immigration Appeals:
Cases Received and Completed by Type of Case
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals
from certain decisions rendered by Immigration Judges or the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) officials. The BIA has jurisdiction over the following types of cases arising
from Immigration Judge (IJ) decisions:
•

Case appeals from the decisions of Immigration Judges in removal, deportation,
and exclusion proceedings at the court level;

•

Appeals filed from the decisions of Immigration Judges on motions to reopen
proceedings;

•

Motions to reopen cases already decided by the BIA;

•

Appeals pertaining to bond, parole, or detention; and

•

Interlocutory appeals relating to important jurisdictional questions regarding the
administration of the immigration laws or recurring problems in the handling of
cases by Immigration Judges.

The BIA also has jurisdiction to review appeals arising from certain decisions
rendered by DHS officials. These types of appeals are listed below. Until FY 2000, when
a revised regulation was published regarding detention of aliens with removal orders, BIA
also had jurisdiction to review custody determinations (bonds) for aliens with final orders
of removal. The BIA has jurisdiction to review IJ decisions in continued detention review
cases.
•

Family-based visa petitions adjudicated by DHS district directors or regional
service center directors;

•

Waivers of inadmissibility for non-immigrants under the §212(d)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act; and

•

Fines and penalties imposed upon air carriers for violations of immigration laws.

As shown in Table 16, there was a decrease in Appeals received from IJ decisons
while there was an increase in appeals received from DHS decisions from FY 2005 to FY
2006 . The data in Table 17 also shows a decrease in Appeals completed from IJ
decisions while there was an increase in appeals completed from DHS decisions for the
same time period. For both receipts and completions there was a significant increase from
FY 2002 to FY 2006 in appeals from DHS.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

T1

Table 16 provides a breakdown of the types of cases received by the BIA between
FY 2002 and FY 2006.
Table 16 - BIA Receipts by Type
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Total Appeals from IJ Decisions
33,176
40,146 40,136
38,684
33,586
Case Appeal
Appeal of IJ Motion to Reopen
Motion to Reopen-BIA
Bond Appeal
Interlocutory Appeal
Circuit Court Remand*
Special Circumstance
Total Appeals from DHS Decisions
Decisions on Visa Petitions
212 Waiver Decisions
Decisions on Fines and Penalties
Bond Decisions
Grand Total

22,048
2,094
7,222
1,722
88
1
1
1,658
1,121
31
504
2
34,834

27,433
2,179
9,034
1,371
127
0
2
1,894
1,764
19
111
0
42,040

27,315
2,073
9,638
974
133
0
3
2,930
2,854
52
24
0
43,066

24,323
1,864
10,333
717
149
1,297
1
4,043
3,955
63
25
0
42,727

20,275
1,540
9,256
614
100
1,798
3
6,121
5,914
75
132
0
39,707

*Circuit Court Remands were added as an appeal type in FY 2005.

Table 17 provides a breakdown of the types of cases completed by the BIA
between FY 2002 and FY 2006.
Table 17 - BIA Completions by Type
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Total Appeals from IJ Decisions
45,231
46,103 46,052
42,188
36,350
Case Appeal
34,255
32,312 31,579
27,365
23,543
Appeal of IJ Motion to Reopen
3,470
2,195
2,828
2,099
1,964
Motion to Reopen-BIA
6,376
9,631 10,121
10,995
8,841
Bond Appeal
1,032
1,832
1,373
756
611
Interlocutory Appeal
97
133
148
134
104
Circuit Court Remand*
0
0
0
837
1,284
Special Circumstance
1
0
3
2
3
Total Appeals from DHS
2,095
1,943
2,653
4,155
5,129
Decisions on Visa Petitions
1,363
1,766
2,585
4,054
4,995
212 Waiver Decisions
52
23
37
72
68
Decisions on Fines and Penalties
676
154
31
29
66
Bond Decisions
4
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
47,326
48,046 48,705
46,343
41,479
*Circuit Court Remands were added as an appeal type in FY 2005.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

T2

Board of Immigration Appeals:
Pending Caseload
Figure 28 below depicts the age of the BIA’s pending caseload. The number of BIA
pending cases have decreased from the end of FY 2005 to the end of FY 2006. At the end
of FY 2005, there were 33,063 cases pending at the BIA. By the end of FY 2006, the
number of pending cases had been reduced to 27,918 cases. The age of pending cases
has also decreased. At the beginning of FY 2006, cases filed before FY 2005 accounted
for 18 percent of the pending caseload. At the end of FY 2006 they accounted for less than
2 percent of the pending caseload. The cases filed in FY 2005 decreased from 82 percent
of total pending at the beginning of FY 2006 to 20 percent of total pending at the end of FY
2006.

BIA Pending Cases
By Year Filed

28000
24000
20000

16000
12000

8000

4000

0

Pre FY 02

FY 02

FY 03

Pending 09/30/05

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

Pending 09/30/06

Figure 28
BIA Pending Cases
Year Filed
Pre FY 02
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
Total

Pending 09/30/05 Pending 09/30/06
41
100
56
149
123
268
272
5,525
5,662
27,021
21,764
27,918
33,063

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

U1

Board of Immigration Appeals:
IJ Decision Appeals Completed by Nationality
This section provides information on appeal completions by nationality. Only
completions of Immigration Judge (IJ) decision appeals are included in these data; we have
not included appeals of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decisions. In FY 2006,
the top 10 nationalities accounted for 67 percent of all completions as shown in Figure 29.
A total of 187 nationalities were represented in the FY 2006 completions. Data in Table
18 compares the predominant nationalities for completed Immigration Judge appeals in
fiscal years 2002-2006. For the five-year period, seven nationalities ranked among the top
ten each year: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Colombia, India, and China. FY
2003 was the only year where Mexico did not rank first in BIA IJ decision appeal
completions, it was outranked by China.

FY 2006 BIA Completions
By Nationality
Mexico (24.23%)

All Other (33.47%)

China (11.15%)
Albania (1.63%)
Pakistan (1.98%)
India (3.19%)
Indonesia (3.36%)
El Salvador (3.38%)
Guatemala (3.43%)

Haiti (8.54%)
Colombia (5.63%)

Figure 29
FY 2006 IJ Appeals Completed by Nationality
% of Total
Cases
Nationality
24.23%
8,808
Mexico
11.15%
4,052
China
8.54%
3,106
Haiti
5.63%
2,046
Colombia
3.43%
1,245
Guatemala
3.38%
1,228
El Salvador
3.36%
1,221
Indonesia
3.19%
1,161
India
1.98%
721
Pakistan
1.63%
594
Albania
33.47%
12,168
All Other
100.00%
36,350
Total

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

V1

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Table 18 - BIA - IJ Decision Appeals Completed by Nationality
Top 25 Nationalities: FY 2002 - FY 2006
Rank

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

1

Mexico

China

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

2

China

Mexico

China

China

China

3

Haiti

Haiti

Haiti

Haiti

Haiti

4

Guatemala

India

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

5

India

Guatemala

India

India

Guatemala

6

El Salvador

Colombia

Guatemala

Guatemala

El Salvador

7

Jamaica

El Salvador

El Salvador

Indonesia

Indonesia

8

Dominican
Republic

Albania

Albania

El Salvador

India

9

Colombia

Dominican
Republic

Dominican
Republic

Pakistan

Pakistan

10

Philippines

Jamaica

Indonesia

Dominican
Republic

Albania

11

Peru

Nigeria

Jamaica

Albania

Dominican
Republic

12

Nigeria

Ethiopia

Philippines

Jamaica

Jamaica

13

Mauritania

Peru

Pakistan

Philippines

Honduras

14

Pakistan

Pakistan

Ethiopia

Nigeria

Nigeria

15

Bangladesh

Philippines

Nigeria

Armenia

Philippines

16

Somalia

Bangladesh

Honduras

Honduras

Armenia

17

Honduras

Somalia

Armenia

Peru

Venezuela

18

Cuba

Mauritania

Peru

Bangladesh

Cameroon

19

Ethiopia

Russia

Yugoslavia

Ethiopia

Peru

20

Albania

Honduras

Cameroon

Cameroon

Bangladesh

21

Nicaragua

Armenia

Mauritania

Russia

Ethiopia

22

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia

Iran

Iraq

Russia

23

Russia

Iran

Russia

Egypt

Guyana

24

Iran

Indonesia

Egypt

Guyana

Egypt

25

Ecuador

Ukraine

Guinea

Nicaragua

Mauritania

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

V2

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Board of Immigration Appeals:
IJ Decision Appeals Completed by Representation Status
The Immigration and Nationality Act states that individuals who have appealed the
decision in their removal proceedings may be represented by counsel, but at no expense
to the Government. Before representing an alien before the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA), representatives must file a Notice of Appearance with the BIA.
Many individuals who file appeals with the BIA are indigent and cannot afford a
private attorney. Some seek free or pro bono representation, while others proceed without
counsel on their own, or pro se. The percentage of represented appellate cases completed
is higher than the percentage of represented cases at the Immigration Court level.
As shown in Figure 30, the representation rate increased from FY 2002 to FY 2003.
A gradual decrease occurred from FY 2003 to FY 2005. There was a slight increase in FY
2006 where 71 percent of appellate cases completed by the BIA involved a represented
alien. Only appeals of IJ decisions are included in these data.
IJ Appe al De cis ions
Pe r ce ntage of Re pr e s e nte d Cas e s
100%
80%
65%

72%

70%

69%

71%

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

60%
40%
20%
0%
FY 02

Figure 30
Represented Before the BIA
Represented

Unrepresented

FY 02

29,493

15,738

45,231

FY 03

33,033

13,070

46,103

FY 04

32,040

14,012

46,052

FY 05

28,979

13,209

42,188

FY 06

25,885

10,465

36,350

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Total

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

W1

Board of Immigration Appeals:
IJ Decision Appeals Completed for Detained Cases
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS has authority to detain an alien
pending a decision on whether or not the alien is removable. EOIR maintains data on the
custody status of aliens in proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) handles
detained cases (including aliens in the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP)) as priority
cases.
Depicted in Figure 31 is the number of Immigration Judge (IJ) case appeal decisions
between FY 2002 and FY 2006 along with the number of Immigration Judge case appeal
decisions that involved detainees. The figures for detained appeal decisions also include
IHP cases.
IJ Case Appeal Decisions
Detained and Total
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Detained Case Appeal Decisions

Total Case Appeal Decisions

Figure 31
Detained IJ Case Appeal Decisions (Including IHP)
Total IJ Case Appeal Percent
Detained Case Appeal
Detained
Decisions
Decisions (Including IHP)
12%
34,255
3,961
FY 02
12%
32,312
3,844
FY 03
14%
31,579
4,317
FY 04
13%
27,365
3,572
FY 05
15%
23,543
3,434
FY 06

Table 19 shows a breakdown of total detained case appeals completed by the BIA,
and of those, the number who were serving sentences at an IHP location. In FY 2006, 18
Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

X1

percent of detained BIA completions involved aliens whose removal orders had been
issued prior to their release from a Federal, State, or municipal corrections facility. From
FY 2002 to FY 2006 the percentage of IHP completions has declined each year. This drop
in the percentage of IHP completions is caused by a decrease in the number of IHP
completions and the total detained completions staying fairly consistent.

Table 19
Breakdown of BIA Detained Completions
Total Detained
Completions

IHP
Completions

Percent IHP
Completions

FY 2002

3,961

1,148

29%

FY 2003

3,844

1,046

27%

FY 2004

4,317

826

19%

FY 2005

3,572

662

19%

FY 2006

3,434

605

18%

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

X2

Immigration Courts
and
Board of Immigration Appeals:
Immigration Judge Decisions (Proceedings) Appealed
The majority of cases reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) involve
decisions made by Immigration Judges in removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings.
Either the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the alien may file an appeal.
Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the Immigration Judge’s decision. Only a relatively
small percentage of Immigration Judge decisions are appealed to the BIA. Figure 32 below
compares Immigration Judge decisions with the number of aliens who appealed their
decisions to the BIA for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. All other figures and tables in Tabs
S-X reflect cases (which can involve multiple aliens). In this instance, reporting on aliens
who appealed is a more accurate representation of appeal rate.

Immigration Judge Decisions
(Proceedings) Appealed
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0

FY 02

FY 03

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

IJ Decisions

Case Appeals Received (Aliens)

Figure 32

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

IJ Decisions (Proceedings) Appealed
Percent
Case Appeals
IJ Decisions
Received (Aliens) Appealed
15%
25,544
170,222
17%
33,654
197,941
16%
34,164
209,274
12%
30,469
264,792
9%
24,527
273,615

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Y1

Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
Total Cases Received and Completed
The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) is headed by the
Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, who is responsible for the general supervision of
Administrative Law Judges. OCAHO’s Administrative Law Judges hear cases and
adjudicate issues arising under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating
to:
•

Unlawful hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee, or continued employment of
unauthorized aliens, and failure to comply with employment verification
requirements;

•

Immigration-related unfair employment practices; and

•

Document fraud.

Complaints may be brought by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair
Employment Practices, or private litigants.
Figure 33 provides information on the number of cases received and completed by
OCAHO between FY 2002 and FY 2006. Completions may include cases received in a
prior fiscal year.
OCAHO Cases
Received and Completed
70

60

FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06

50

40
30
20

FY 02

FY 03

Receipts

FY 04

FY 05

OCAHO Cases
Receipts Completions
49
44
67
57
58
62
34
45
30
23

FY 06

Completions

Figure 33

Executive Office for Immigration Review
FY 2006 Statistical Year Book

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
February 2007

Z1

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Disclaimer
This Glossary has been compiled as an addendum to the FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Its intent is to define terms as they
are used in the Year Book, and is strictly informational in nature. These terms may have
further meaning in the context of other immigration matters. This Glossary is not intended,
in any way, to be a substitute for a careful study of the pertinent laws and regulations. This
Glossary does not carry the weight of law or regulation. This Glossary is not intended, nor
should it be construed in any way, as legal advice, nor does it extend or limit the jurisdiction
of EOIR as established by law and regulation.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

A
Abandoned
If an applicant for relief fails to appear for a court hearing, or fails to provide any required
information within the time frame allowed without good cause, the application is considered
abandoned. In addition, if an applicant fails to timely file an application for relief, the
Immigration Judge may deem that application waived.
Accredited Representative
A non-attorney who is authorized to practice before the Immigration Courts, the Board of
Immigration Appeals, and/or the Department of Homeland Security. In order to be an
accredited representative, one must be affiliated with a “recognized” non-profit, religious,
charitable, or social service organization, and meet other qualifying criteria. See
Recognized Organization.
Adjustment of Status
A type of relief from deportation, removal, or exclusion for an alien who is eligible for Lawful
Permanent Resident status based on a visa petition approved by the Department of
Homeland Security. The status of an alien may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his
discretion, to that of a lawful permanent resident if a visa petition on behalf of the alien has
been approved, an immigrant visa is immediately available at the time of the alien’s
application for adjustment of status, and the alien is not otherwise inadmissible to the
United States.
Administrative Closure
Administrative closure of a case is used to temporarily remove the case from an
Immigration Judge’s calendar or from the Board of Immigration Appeal’s docket.
Administrative closure of a case does not result in a final order. It is merely an
administrative convenience which allows the removal of cases from the calendar in
appropriate situations. A case may not be administratively closed if opposed by either of
the parties.
Administrative Law Judges
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
(OCAHO) preside over hearings and adjudicate issues arising under provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, relating to (1) employer sanctions
for the unlawful hiring or continued employment of unauthorized aliens, or the failure to
comply with employment eligibility verification requirements, (2) immigration-related
document fraud, and (3) immigration-related unfair employment practices based on certain
national origin or citizenship status discrimination. OCAHO ALJs are required by statute
to have special training in employment discrimination issues.
Affirmative Asylum Application
An asylum application initially filed with the Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Contrast Defensive Asylum Application.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

2

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Aggravated Felony
As defined by section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended,
aggravated felony includes, but is not limited to, murder; rape or sexual abuse of a minor;
drug trafficking; firearms or explosive materials trafficking; money laundering; crimes of
violence for which the term of imprisonment, even if suspended, is at least one year or
more; theft or burglary; demands for ransom; child pornography; gambling; tax fraud;
prostitution; transportation for prostitution purposes; commercial bribery; counterfeiting;
forgery; stolen vehicle trafficking; obstruction of justice; perjury; bribery of a witness; and
failure to appear to answer for a criminal offense.
Appeal from Decision of an Immigration Judge
In an appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge, the appealing party, which could be
an alien, the Department of Homeland Security, or both, states why he or she disagrees
with the Immigration Judge’s decision. By filing an appeal, the appealing party asks the
Board of Immigration Appeals to review the Immigration Judge’s decision.
Appeal from Decision of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) District Director
In an appeal from a decision of a DHS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ District
Director, the respondent states why he or she disagrees with a District Director’s decision.
By filing an appeal, the respondent asks the Board of Immigration Appeals to review the
District Director’s decision.
Application for Relief
Aliens may request a number of forms of relief or protection from removal such as asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, adjustment of
status, or cancellation of removal. Many forms of relief require the alien to fill out an
appropriate application.
Asylum
An alien may be eligible for asylum if he or she can show that he or she is a “refugee.” The
INA defines a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of nationality or, in
the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any county in which such person last
habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to
avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. Aliens generally must apply for asylum within
one year of arrival in the United States. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, final
administrative adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative appeal,
must be completed within 180 days after the date the application is filed.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

3

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Asylum Grants
An asylum grant allows the alien to remain in the United States and provides certain
benefits and derivative asylum status for any spouse or child. An asylee can apply to the
Department of Homeland Security for lawful permanent resident status under INA section
209(b) after he or she has been physically present in the United States for a period of one
year after the date of the asylum grant.
Asylum-only Proceedings
Certain aliens are not entitled to a removal hearing under section 240 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, (INA), yet these aliens are entitled to an asylumonly hearing before an Immigration Judge. If an alien who is not entitled to a removal
hearing under section 240 of the INA requests asylum (and has not been granted asylum
by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), if eligible), DHS will file a Form I-863,
Notice of Referral to an Immigration Judge, with the Immigration Court. The Immigration
Judge may not consider forms of relief other than asylum, withholding of removal, and
Convention Against Torture. Aliens eligible for asylum-only hearings include crewmen,
stowaways, Visa Waiver Program beneficiaries, and those ordered removed from the
United States on security grounds. Asylum-only cases will be heard, to the maximum
extent practical, within the same time frame as asylum claims in removal cases, i.e, within
180 days. The Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from
Immigration Judge decisions in asylum-only cases. See Withholding-only Proceedings.

B
Board of Immigration Appeals
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is the highest administrative body for interpreting
and applying immigration laws. The BIA has been given nationwide jurisdiction to hear
appeals from certain decisions rendered by Immigration Judges and by Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ District Directors in
a wide variety of proceedings in which the U.S. Government is one party and the other
party is either an alien, a citizen, or a business firm. In addition, the BIA is responsible for
the recognition of organizations and accreditation of representatives requesting permission
to practice before the BIA, the Immigration Courts, and/or DHS.
Bond
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may detain a respondent who is in removal
or deportation proceedings and may condition his or her release from custody upon the
posting of a bond to ensure the respondent's appearance at the hearing. The amount of
money set by DHS as a condition of release is known as a bond. A bond may be also set
by an Immigration Judge as a condition for allowing a respondent to voluntarily leave the
country.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

4

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Bond Redetermination Hearing
When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has set a bond amount as a condition
for release from custody, or has determined not to release the alien on bond, the
respondent has the right to ask an Immigration Judge to redetermine the bond. In a bond
redetermination hearing, the Judge can raise, lower, or maintain the amount of the bond,
however, the INA provides that bond of at least $1,500 is required before an alien may be
released. In addition, the Immigration Judge can eliminate the bond; or change any of the
conditions over which the Immigration Court has authority. The bond redetermination
hearing is completely separate from the removal or deportation hearing. It is not recorded
and has no bearing on the subsequent removal or deportation proceeding. The respondent
and/or DHS may appeal the Immigration Judge’s bond redetermination decision to the
Board of Immigration Appeals.

C
Cancellation of Removal
There are two different forms of cancellation of removal:
(A) Cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents who were admitted more
than five years ago, have resided in the United States for seven or more years, and have
not been convicted of an aggravated felony. See section 240A(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. Application for this form of discretionary relief is
made during the course of a hearing before an Immigration Judge.
(B) Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent resident
aliens who have maintained continuous physical presence in the United States for 10 years
and have met all the other statutory requirements for such relief. See section 240A(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. Application for this form of
discretionary relief is made during the course of a hearing before an Immigration Judge.
The status of an alien who is granted cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent
resident aliens is adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Case
In an immigration proceeding before an Immigration Judge, a “case” involves one alien.
In an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals, a “case” involves one lead alien and
may also include other family members.
In a proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge in the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Office, a “case” involves a complainant and a respondent. In cases
brought under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 274A and section 274C, the
complainant is the Department of Homeland Security, and the respondent is an employer.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

5

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

In INA section 274B cases, the complainant is either the Office of Special Counsel for
Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices or an individual employee, and the
respondent is an employer. An employee is a U.S. citizen or an alien authorized to work
in the United States.
Change of Venue
Immigration Judges, for good cause shown, may change venue (move the proceeding to
another Immigration Court) only upon motion by one of the parties, after the charging
document has been filed with the Immigration Court. The regulation provides that venue
may be changed only after one of the parties has filed a motion to change venue and the
other party has been given notice and an opportunity to respond.
Claimed Status Review
If an alien in expedited removal proceedings claims under oath to be a U.S. citizen, to have
been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have been admitted as a refugee, or
to have been granted asylum, and the Department of Homeland Security determines that
the alien has no such claim, he or she can obtain a review of that claim by an Immigration
Judge.
Coercive Population Control
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 provided
that those who have a well-founded fear of persecution or have suffered persecution on
account of Coercive Population Control (CPC) policies can now qualify as refugees.
Previously, up to a total of 1,000 refugee admissions and asylum grants were made each
fiscal year to applicants who raised claims based on CPC. If applicants for asylum met the
criteria for a CPC grant, they were given conditional asylum and were given a final grant
of asylum when a number became available. Effective May 11, 2005, under the REAL ID
Act, the annual cap was lifted on asylum grants based on CPC. See Conditional Asylum
Grants.
Completions
Within the context of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, a matter is considered
completed once an Immigration Judge renders a decision. Proceedings may also be
completed for other reasons, such as administrative closures, changes of venue, and
transfers.
For matters before the Board of Immigration Appeals, a case is considered completed once
the Board renders a final decision.
For matters before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, a case is
completed when the Administrative Law Judge issues a final decision disposing of all
remaining issues and the time for appeal has ended.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

6

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Conditional Asylum Grants
Section 207(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, provided that for any fiscal
year no more than 1,000 aliens could be admitted as refugees or granted asylum pursuant
to a determination that the alien was or would be persecuted for resistance to coercive
population control methods. An alien who was eligible for a grant of asylum based on
coercive population control methods received a grant conditioned on an administrative
determination by the Department of Homeland Security that a number was available.
Effective May 11, 2005, under the REAL ID Act, the annual cap was lifted on asylum grants
based on coercive population control methods. See Coercive Population Control.
Continuance
The adjournment of a proceeding to a subsequent day or time.
Continued Detention Review
A proceeding established in response to the 2001 Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas
v. Davis, in which the Immigration Judge decides whether or not the alien should remain
in custody.
Convention Against Torture
On March 22, 1999, the Department of Justice implemented regulations regarding the
United Nations’ Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture or CAT). Under this regulation,
aliens in removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings may claim that they “more likely
than not” will be tortured if removed from the United States. Among other things, the
regulation provides jurisdiction to the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration
Appeals for reviewing these claims. See Deferral of Removal and Withholding-only
Proceedings.
Credible Fear Review
If an alien seeking to enter the United States has no documents or no valid documents to
enter, but expresses a fear of persecution or torture, or an intention to apply for asylum,
that alien will be referred to a Department of Homeland Security asylum officer for a
credible fear determination. If the asylum officer determines that the alien has not
established a credible fear of persecution or torture and a supervisory asylum officer
concurs, the alien may request review of that determination by an Immigration Judge. That
review must be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable
within 24 hours, but in no event later than seven days after the date of the determination
by the supervisory asylum officer. No appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals may be
taken from the Immigration Judge’s decision finding no credible fear of persecution or
torture. If the Immigration Judge determines that the alien has a credible fear of
persecution or torture, the alien will be placed in removal proceedings to apply for asylum.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

7

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Custody Status
Whether an alien is in actual custody (detained) or is at liberty. This Year Book describes
three custody categories: detained, non-detained (EOIR has no record of the alien having
been detained), and released (detained, then released on bond, recognizance, or some
other condition).

D
Decision
A determination and order arrived at after consideration of facts and law, by either an
Immigration Judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer.
Defensive Asylum Application
An asylum application initially filed with the Immigration Court after the alien has been put
into proceedings to remove him or her from the United States. Contrast Affirmative Asylum
Application.
Deferral of Removal
If an Immigration Judge concludes that it is more likely than not that a removable alien will
be tortured in a country, but the alien is ineligible for withholding of removal under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT), the alien’s removal will be deferred. The alien’s
removal is deferred only to the country in which it has been determined that the alien is
likely to be tortured. However, the alien may be removed at any time to another country
where he or she is not likely to be tortured. In addition, deferral of removal is effective only
until it is terminated. The major difference between deferral of removal and withholding of
removal is that there is a streamlined termination process for deferral of removal.
Denials
When an Immigration Judge denies an alien’s application for relief from removal.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
On March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the functions of the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), among other agencies. Three major components of DHS have
functions which relate closely to the Executive Office for Immigration Review. U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processes all immigrant and non-immigrant
benefits, incorporating the adjudication and naturalization functions of the former INS. U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is charged with the enforcement of federal
immigration laws, and includes functions of the former investigations and detention and
removal components of INS. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) absorbed the
border patrol and inspections functions of the former INS. See Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

8

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Deportation Proceedings
Prior to April 1, 1997, a deportation case usually arose when the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) (now Department of Homeland Security) alleged that a
respondent entered the country illegally by crossing the border without being inspected by
an immigration officer. Deportation cases also occurred when INS alleged that a
respondent entered the country legally with a visa but then violated one or more conditions
of the visa. When INS became aware of a respondent believed to be deportable, they
issued a charging document called an Order to Show Cause (OSC). An OSC is the
charging document that was used prior to April 1, 1997. A deportation proceeding actually
began when the OSC was filed with an Immigration Court. In such proceedings, the
Government, represented by INS, had to prove that a respondent was deportable for the
reasons stated in the OSC. As of April 1, 1997, deportation and exclusion proceedings
were replaced by removal proceedings. Contrast Exclusion and Removal Proceedings.
Detained
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) maintains data on the custody status
of aliens in proceedings. Detained aliens are those in the custody of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) or other entities. For the purpose of this Year Book, EOIR also
includes in its statistical data on detained aliens, the number of incarcerated aliens in the
Institutional Hearing Program. Immigration Court hearings for detained aliens are
conducted in DHS Service Processing Centers, contract detention facilities, State and local
government jails, and Bureau of Prisons institutions. See Custody Status.
Detention of an Alien
The confinement of an alien by the Department of Homeland Security or other entities.
Disposition
In immigration proceedings, the latest ruling on an alien’s removability.
District Director (DD)
Under the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the District Director (DD)
was the highest ranking immigration official in each of the INS’s 30+ districts. The INS was
transferred out of the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security on
March 1, 2003. The DDs are located organizationally under the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. The DD has the delegated authority to grant or deny most
applications and petitions, except those that are specifically delegated to asylum officers.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

9

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

E
Exclusion Proceedings
Prior to April 1, 1997, an exclusion case involved a person who tried to enter the United
States but was stopped at the port of entry because the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) (now Department of Homeland Security) found the person to be inadmissible.
The INS District Director could either detain the applicant or "parole" the applicant into the
country; i.e., release from detention and allow to remain free until completion of the
hearing. In either case, the applicant technically had not entered the country as a matter
of law. Beginning April 1, 1997, deportation and exclusion proceedings were replaced by
removal proceedings. Contrast Deportation and Removal Proceedings.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created on January 9, 1983,
through an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) reorganization which combined the Board
of Immigration Appeals with the Immigration Judge function, which was previously
performed by Special Inquiry Officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
(now Department of Homeland Security). The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer (OCAHO) was added in 1987. EOIR is responsible for adjudicating immigration
cases. Specifically, under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR interprets
and administers federal immigration laws by conducting immigration court proceedings,
appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR consists of three components: the
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the numerous
immigration courts located throughout the United States where Immigration Judges
adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts
appellate reviews of Immigration Judge decisions; and the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases.
EOIR is committed to providing fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the nation's
immigration laws in all cases.
Expedited Asylum
Asylum regulations implemented in 1995 mandated that asylum applications be processed
within 180 days after filing either at a Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Asylum Office or at an Immigration Court. The Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) reiterated the 180day rule. Consequently, expedited processing of asylum applications occurs when (1) an
alien files “affirmatively” at an Asylum Office on or after January 4, 1995, and the
application is referred to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) by DHS within
75 days of the filing; or (2) an alien files an application “defensively” with EOIR on or after
January 4, 1995.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

10

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

F
Failure to Appear
A failure to appear is when either party to a proceeding does not arrive or make an
appearance at a court proceeding. Failure to appear by the respondent may result in either
an in absentia order of removal or an administrative closure. See In Absentia.
Filing
A filing occurs with the actual receipt of a document by the appropriate Immigration Court,
the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.
Fines and Penalties
Certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act render individuals and carriers
liable for transporting unauthorized aliens in the United States. Fines may be assessed by
certain Department of Homeland Security officials. The respondent is notified in writing of
the decision and, if adverse, of the reasons for the decision. The respondent may appeal
this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Fiscal Year
A 12-month period for which an organization plans the use of its funds. In the U.S.
Government, the fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30.

G
Grant of Relief
When an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals awards a form of relief
for which the alien has applied.
Grant of Motion
There are many types of motions in immigration proceedings. However, only two types are
tracked in the Statistical Year Book: motions to reopen and motions to reconsider. A
motion to reconsider is granted when an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) allows a reconsideration of the decision based on a possible error in law or
fact, or a change in the law. A motion to reopen is granted when an Immigration Judge
or the BIA allows a proceeding to be reopened because of new facts or evidence in a case.
I
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
Among other things, IIRIRA focused on enforcement of immigration laws by streamlining
the procedures that were previously required to remove aliens from the United States. To
date, IIRIRA made the most extensive and significant changes to the immigration laws of
the United States since the 1952 enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

11

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)
The INA consolidated previous immigration laws into one coordinated statute. As
amended, the INA provides the foundation for immigration law in effect today. The INA
deals with the immigration, temporary admission, naturalization, and removal of aliens.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Until its transition to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on March 1, 2003, INS
was the agency responsible for administering immigration and nationality laws relating to
the temporary admission, immigration, naturalization, and removal of aliens. Specifically,
INS inspected aliens to determine their admissibility into the United States, adjudicated
requests of aliens for benefits under the law, guarded against illegal entry into the United
States, removed aliens in this country who were in violation of the law, examined alien
applicants seeking to become citizens, and enforced immigration-related employment
verification and document fraud laws. See Department of Homeland Security.
Immigration Court
Each Immigration Court is staffed with one or more Immigration Judges who conduct
immigration hearings. An administrative control Immigration Court is one that creates and
maintains Records of Proceedings for Immigration Courts within an assigned geographical
area. Management functions of the Immigration Court are supervised by a Court
Administrator.
Immigration Judge
The term Immigration Judge means an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as
an administrative judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, qualified to
conduct specified classes of proceedings, including exclusion, deportation, removal,
asylum, bond redetermination, rescission, withholding, credible fear, reasonable fear, and
claimed status review. Immigration Judges act as independent decision-makers in deciding
the matters before them. Immigration Judge decisions are administratively final unless
appealed or certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals, or if the period by which to file
an appeal lapses.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
Among other things, IRCA addressed the problem of undocumented aliens by imposing
sanctions on employers of illegal aliens, and legalizing the status of certain undocumented
entrants who had arrived prior to January 1, 1982. The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (now Department of Homeland Security) also was provided with significant new
resources to enforce the immigration laws through IRCA. IRCA also created protections
for workers against discrimination based on citizenship status and national origin.
In Absentia
A Latin phrase meaning “in the absence of.” An in absentia hearing occurs when an alien
fails to appear for a hearing and the Immigration Judge conducts the hearing without the
alien present and orders the alien removed from the United States. An Immigration Judge
shall order removed in absentia any alien who, after written notice of the time and place of
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

12

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

proceedings and the consequences of failing to appear, fails to appear at his or her removal
proceeding. The DHS must establish by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that
the written notice was provided and that the alien is removable. See Failure to Appear.
Inadmissible
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) replaced
the term “excludable” with the term “inadmissible.” Section 212 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act defines classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for
admission. Aliens who, at the time of entry, are within one of these classes of inadmissible
aliens are removable.
Institutional Hearing Program (IHP)
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires the Attorney General to
expeditiously commence immigration proceedings for alien inmates convicted of crimes in
the United States. To meet this requirement, the Department of Justice established the IHP
where removal hearings are held inside correctional institutions prior to the alien completing
his or her criminal sentence. The IHP is a collaborative effort between the Executive Office
for Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland Security and various Federal,
State, and local corrections agencies throughout the country.
Interlocutory Appeals
An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a
preliminary ruling of an Immigration Judge before the Judge renders a final decision in the
case. Common examples include rulings on the admissibility of evidence or requests to
change venue.

L
Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)
An alien who has been conferred permanent resident status.

M
Matters
Matters before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals include all
proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or reconsider.
Motion
A motion is a formal request from either party (the alien or the Department of Homeland
Security) in proceedings before the Immigration Court, or the Board of Immigration
Appeals, to carry out an action or make a decision. Motions include, for example, motions
for change of venue, motions for continuance, motions to terminate proceedings, etc. Only
motions to reopen or reconsider are currently tracked and reported in this Statistical Year
Book.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

13

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

N
Nationality
For purposes of the EOIR Statistical Yearbook, nationality indicates the country that the
alien is from.
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA)
Under section 202 of NACARA, certain nationals of Nicaragua and Cuba in the United
States were eligible to adjust their immigration status to become lawful permanent
residents. In addition, section 203 of NACARA provides special rules regarding
applications for suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal by certain
Guatemalan, Salvadoran, and particular former Soviet bloc nationals.
Non-detained
The status of an alien who is not in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security
or the Institutional Hearing Program. See Released.
Notice to Appear (NTA)
The document (Form I-862) used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
charge an alien with being removable from the United States. Jurisdiction vests and
proceedings commence when an NTA is filed with an Immigration Court by DHS. Prior to
the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
the charging document was known as an Order to Show Cause.

Notice of Intent To Rescind
In a rescission case, the Department of Homeland Security issues a Notice of Intent to
Rescind an individual’s permanent resident status, and the individual has the right to
contest the charge in rescission proceedings. See Rescission Proceedings.

O
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO)
OCAHO has jurisdiction over three types of cases arising under the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, as amended: (1) employer sanctions for the unlawful hiring or
continued employment of unauthorized aliens; (2) immigration-related unfair employment
practices; and, (3) immigration-related document fraud. OCAHO is headed by a Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer who provides overall program direction, articulates policies
and procedures, establishes priorities and administers the hearing process presided over
by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). OCAHO also conducts administrative review of
ALJs' decisions in the areas of employer sanctions and document fraud, and may modify
or vacate those ALJ decisions. Complaints are brought by the Department of Homeland
Security, the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment
Practices, or private individuals as prescribed by statute.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

14

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ)
OCIJ provides overall program direction, articulates policies and procedures, and
establishes priorities for Immigration Judges. In FY 2005, 214 Immigration Judges were
located in 53 Immigration Courts throughout the Nation. The Chief Immigration Judge
carries out these responsibilities with the assistance and support of two Deputy Chief
Immigration Judges and eight Assistant Chief Immigration Judges. See Immigration Judge.

P
Pro Bono
A Latin phrase meaning “for the public good.” In a legal context, this phrase means legal
representation done or performed free of charge. Because aliens in removal proceedings
are not entitled to publicly-funded legal assistance, some attorneys offer their services on
a pro bono basis.
Pro Se
A Latin phrase meaning that the party represents him or herself in legal proceedings
without an attorney or representative.
Proceeding
The legal process conducted before the Immigration Court and Board of Immigration
Appeals.

R
Reasonable Fear Review
Reasonable Fear Review proceedings are available to aliens who have been ordered
removed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under section 238 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (covering aliens who are not lawful permanent
residents and have been convicted of an aggravated felony) and under section 241(a)(5)
of the INA (covering aliens who are the subjects of previously issued final orders of
removal). Under this process, an alien who has been ordered removed by DHS and
expresses a fear of persecution or torture will have his or her claim screened by an asylum
officer. If the asylum officer determines that the alien has not established a reasonable fear
of persecution or torture, the alien may request a review of that determination by an
Immigration Judge. No appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals may be taken from the
Immigration Judge’s finding that an alien does not have a reasonable fear of persecution
or torture. If an Immigration Judge determines that the alien has a reasonable fear of
persecution or torture, the alien will be placed in withholding-only proceedings.
Receipts
The number of judicial filings received by the Executive Office for Immigration Review. For
the Immigration Courts, receipts include bond redetermination hearings, proceedings, and
motions. For the Board of Immigration Appeals, receipts include case, bond, motion, and
interlocutory appeals, as well as certain appeals of Department of Homeland Security
decisions. For the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, receipts represent the
number of new complaints filed.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

15

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Recognized Organization
A non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization formally recognized
by the Board of Immigration Appeals as such under the provisions of 8 C.F.R.
section 1292.2. See Accredited Representative.
Reconsider, Motion to
Aliens may request, by motion, the reconsideration of a case previously heard by an
Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A motion to reconsider
either identifies an error in law or fact in a prior proceeding or identifies a change in law and
asks the Immigration Judge or BIA to re-examine its ruling. A motion to reconsider is
based on the existing record and does not seek to introduce new facts or evidence.

Released
A released alien is an individual who was detained at some point during proceedings and
subsequently was released on bond or on their own recognizance.
Relief from Removal
In hearings before an Immigration Judge, an alien may be able to seek relief from removal.
Various types of relief may be sought, including asylum, withholding of removal, protection
under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, or adjustment of status.
Many forms of relief require the alien to fill out an appropriate application.
Removable
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 replaced
the terms “excludable” and “deportable” with the umbrella term “removable.” An alien may
be found to be removable from the United States by an Immigration Judge or the Board of
Immigration Appeals. Additionally, some aliens are determined to be removable by the
Department of Homeland Security, e.g., in expedited removal or administrative removal
proceedings. Only aliens found removable by the Executive Office for Immigration Review
are reported in this Year Book.
Removal Proceedings
An Immigration Court proceeding begun on or after April 1, 1997, seeking to either stop
certain aliens from being admitted to the United States or to remove them from the United
States.
A removal case usually arises when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleges
that a respondent is inadmissible to the United States, has entered the country illegally by
crossing the border without being inspected by an immigration officer, or has violated the
terms of his or her admission. The DHS issues a charging document called a Notice to
Appear and files it with an Immigration Court to begin a removal proceeding.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

16

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Reopen, Motion to
Aliens may request, by motion, the reopening of a case previously heard by an Immigration
Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A motion to reopen asks an Immigration
Judge or the BIA to consider new and previously unavailable facts or evidence in a case.
Represented
A represented individual has an attorney or accredited representative act as his agent in
proceedings before the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Rescission Proceedings
A less common type of proceeding is related to rescinding lawful permanent resident
status. If, within five years of granting adjustment of status, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) discovers that the respondent/applicant was not entitled to lawful
permanent resident (LPR) status when it was granted, DHS issues a Notice of Intent to
Rescind. If the respondent/applicant requests a hearing before an Immigration Court, DHS
will file the Notice with the Immigration Court, and the proceeding to rescind the individual's
LPR status commences. As with deportation cases, the Government has the burden of
proof to show that rescission is warranted. If an individual loses LPR status, he or she then
is usually subject to removal proceedings. Although rescission proceedings still exist after
April 1, 1997, the DHS may also place an LPR into removal proceedings. An order of
removal is sufficient to rescind the alien's status. See Notice of Intent to Rescind.
Respondent
A party to an immigration proceeding against whom charges have been lodged and
findings may be made.

S
Suspension of Deportation
Suspension of Deportation was a discretionary form of relief for certain aliens in deportation
proceedings who had maintained continuous physical presence in the United States for
seven years and had met the other statutory requirements for such relief. See former
section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. Application for
this relief was made during the course of a hearing before an Immigration Judge. The
status of an alien who was granted this relief was adjusted to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence. In 1997, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 replaced suspension of deportation with cancellation of removal.
See Cancellation of Removal, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (IIRIRA).

T
Termination A termination is a type of completion in which a case is closed by an
Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals without a final order of removal or
deportation. A case is terminated when the respondent is found not removable as DHS
charged.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

17

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

U
Unrepresented
An individual in proceedings may represent himself or herself before an Immigration Court
or the Board of Immigration Appeals instead of being represented by an attorney or
accredited representative. See Pro Se.

V
Visa Petition
A visa petition is the first step toward obtaining lawful permanent residence for a foreignborn individual or family. It is usually filed by a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or
employer on behalf of an alien. Visa petitions filed by individuals present in the United
States are adjudicated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, once
approved, may be revoked or revalidated by DHS under certain circumstances. (Visa
petitions filed by individuals outside the United States are adjudicated by the Department
of State.) In some instances, if a visa petition that was filed with DHS is denied or revoked,
or the revalidation of a visa petition is denied, an appeal may be taken to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). For visa petition appeals within the BIA’s jurisdiction, DHS is
initially responsible for management of the appeal, including the briefing process. The BIA’s
role in the appeal process does not begin until the completed record is received from DHS.
Voluntary Departure
Voluntary departure is the departure of an alien from the United States without an order of
removal. The departure may or may not have been preceded by a hearing before an
Immigration Judge. An alien allowed to voluntarily depart concedes removability but is not
barred from seeking admission at a port of entry in the future. Failure to depart within the
time granted results in a fine and a 10-year bar against the alien applying for several forms
of relief from removal.

W
Withdrawal of an Appeal
An appealing party may, at any time prior to the entry of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals, voluntarily withdraw his or her appeal.

Withdrawal of an Application for Relief
An alien in proceedings may, at any time prior to a decision in his or her case, voluntarily
withdraw any application for relief filed on his or her behalf.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

18

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

Withholding of Removal
Pursuant to section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien may not be
removed to a particular country if the alien can establish that his or her life or freedom
would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. A request for asylum is
deemed to include a request for withholding of removal under the applicable regulations.
Withholding-only Proceedings
An alien in administrative removal proceedings under section 238 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) (covering aliens who are not lawful permanent residents and have
been convicted of an aggravated felony) and aliens subject to reinstatement of removal
under section 241(a)(5) of the INA are now able to apply for withholding of removal under
section 241(b)(3) of the INA, as well as under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture,
after a screening process by a Department of Homeland Security asylum officer. In a
withholding-only proceeding, an Immigration Judge may only consider the alien’s
application for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA and the
Convention Against Torture pursuant to 8 C.F.R. section 1208.16. The Board of
Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from Immigration Judge decisions in
withholding-only cases. See Asylum-only Proceedings.

Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology

19

FY 2006 Statistical Year Book
Appendix A - Glossary of Terms
February 2007

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY
AFGHANISTAN

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

49

24

0

10

2

10

14

ALBANIA

752

506

0

394

27

90

193

ALGERIA

23

13

0

22

3

7

11

ANDORRA

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

23

16

0

19

0

1

6

ANGUILLA

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

ARGENTINA

124

10

0

149

7

61

56

ARMENIA

486

289

0

161

55

79

154

ARUBA

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

AUSTRALIA

6

0

0

0

0

1

1

AUSTRIA

12

0

0

0

1

1

1

AZERBAIJAN

30

27

0

15

3

2

17

BAHAMAS

7

0

0

4

0

1

4

BAHRAIN

11

0

0

8

1

4

0

301

114

0

83

23

71

99

BARBADOS

3

1

0

2

1

1

1

BE REMOVED FROM THE UNITED STATES

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

BELARUS

97

53

0

27

8

11

36

BELGIUM

30

5

0

2

0

4

10

BELIZE

12

1

0

3

3

6

7

BENIN

7

1

0

3

0

0

4

BERMUDA

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

ANGOLA

BANGLADESH

Page 1 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

BHUTAN

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

BOLIVIA

24

2

0

3

3

6

6

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

45

7

0

17

1

6

13

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

236

33

0

94

27

46

54

BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY

1

0

0

3

0

0

0

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

49

13

0

8

1

9

15

BULGARIA

152

72

0

40

10

14

43

BURMA (MYANMAR)

216

163

0

45

7

15

47

BURUNDI

32

13

0

10

2

0

8

BYELORUSSIA (BELARUS)

95

52

0

21

4

8

30

CAMBODIA

48

9

0

49

3

10

14

CAMEROON

453

358

0

166

15

31

141

45

9

0

3

1

3

7

CAPE VERDE

4

0

0

1

0

3

3

CAYMAN ISLANDS

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

33

10

0

21

1

5

11

CHAD

58

16

0

7

1

4

7

CHILE

15

2

0

6

2

1

7

CHINA

8,946

4,059

2

2,121

229

287

1,567

COLOMBIA

1,959

779

0

1,648

289

688

952

141

90

0

46

6

16

57

BOTSWANA
BRAZIL

BUKINA FASO

CANADA

CONGO

Page 2 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY
COSTA RICA

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

15

0

1

3

0

3

11

8

1

0

3

0

2

4

617

26

0

80

47

204

285

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

CZECH REPUBLIC

19

2

0

4

1

1

8

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

31

2

0

5

3

7

18

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

52

23

0

27

7

10

16

DJIBOUTI

11

6

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

0

2

1

1

0

86

1

0

19

0

27

26

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

ECUADOR

113

11

0

29

9

31

29

EGYPT

437

240

0

63

16

58

75

7,161

95

0

1,006

464

609

1,861

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

ERITREA

204

95

0

29

2

6

78

ESTONIA

41

3

0

5

5

8

8

ETHIOPIA

708

342

0

168

6

53

95

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

92

45

0

51

6

45

46

FINLAND

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

FRANCE

19

2

0

9

0

12

3

GABON

12

5

0

1

0

0

4

CROATIA
CUBA
CYPRUS

DOMINICA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
EAST GERMANY

EL SALVADOR
EQUATORIAL GUINEA

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESA
FIJI

Page 3 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY
GAMBIA

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

266

46

0

33

3

66

74

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

GEORGIA

101

59

0

46

6

21

28

GERMANY

35

9

0

3

2

3

1

GHANA

75

6

0

23

4

7

18

GIBRALTAR

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

GREECE

8

3

0

1

1

1

1

GRENADA

2

0

0

0

0

2

1

5,028

160

0

886

556

614

1,014

536

358

0

200

33

54

77

7

2

0

4

0

2

3

136

16

0

77

11

38

37

HAITI

5,917

570

0

2,522

576

356

1,329

HONDURAS

1,149

66

0

423

68

133

194

1

0

0

2

0

0

1

12

2

0

3

0

1

7

1,015

450

0

459

60

155

278

INDONESIA

885

314

0

1,090

78

333

296

IRAN

337

118

0

86

17

63

98

IRAQ

319

191

0

126

6

24

62

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

ISRAEL

61

25

0

22

2

14

31

ITALY

15

3

0

10

0

7

1

GAZA STRIP

GUATEMALA
GUINEA
GUINEA BISSAU
GUYANA

HONG KONG
HUNGARY
INDIA

IRELAND

Page 4 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

IVORY COAST (COTE D'IVOIRE)

314

160

0

82

8

34

57

JAMAICA

146

3

0

45

5

34

48

7

3

0

5

0

8

8

95

27

0

45

1

30

37

KAMPUCHEA

6

11

0

9

1

6

7

KAZAKHSTAN

57

25

0

14

3

10

12

252

60

0

120

15

36

78

30

20

0

9

2

2

9

KIRIBATI

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

KOSOVE

8

4

0

2

0

1

1

KUWAIT

18

4

0

7

0

5

5

LAOS

84

11

0

37

0

29

27

LATVIA

28

12

0

8

3

8

9

LEBANON

118

26

0

48

4

49

58

LESOTHO

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

206

59

0

65

14

33

97

5

1

0

4

1

0

0

94

18

0

19

10

10

34

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

35

20

0

22

1

8

15

9

1

0

1

0

2

3

MALAWI

14

0

0

0

0

0

3

MALAYSIA

20

4

0

8

0

7

2

JAPAN
JORDAN

KENYA
KIRGHIZIA (KYRGYZSTAN)

LIBERIA
LIBYA
LITHUANIA
MACAU
MACEDONIA
MADAGASCAR

Page 5 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY
MALI

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

242

62

0

37

6

32

39

MALTA

3

1

0

0

0

0

1

MARTINIQUE

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

MAURITANIA

419

218

0

194

49

34

188

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

2,611

48

0

297

156

4,158

619

39

2

0

8

0

7

16

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

MONGOLIA

126

39

0

31

4

4

18

MOROCCO

43

8

0

23

3

7

10

MOZAMBIQUE

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

NAMIBIA

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

310

165

0

70

8

19

46

NETHERLANDS

4

0

0

0

0

2

1

NEW CALEDONIA

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

NEW ZEALAND

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1,971

15

0

120

361

57

622

29

10

0

24

3

8

15

239

30

0

90

3

43

58

NIUE

5

0

0

2

0

0

1

NO NATIONALITY

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

6

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

1

0

MAURITIUS
MEXICO
MOLDAVIA (MOLDOVA)
MONACO

NEPAL

NICARAGUA
NIGER
NIGERIA

NORTH KOREA
OMAN

Page 6 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY
PAKISTAN

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

561

178

0

250

17

167

185

3

0

0

7

4

1

2

15

7

0

4

1

3

4

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

19

2

0

5

1

0

5

PERU

301

90

0

141

21

78

99

PHILIPPINES

179

17

0

68

8

102

60

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

237

4

0

23

68

44

122

15

5

0

3

5

10

13

1

0

0

2

0

1

1

ROMANIA

242

43

0

35

13

30

45

RUSSIA

564

202

0

133

46

84

184

45

23

0

9

1

2

4

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

SAUDI ARABIA

32

13

0

3

0

2

8

SENEGAL

87

15

0

43

9

10

16

SERBIA MONTENEGRO

54

23

0

15

4

4

12

6

1

0

6

0

0

4

245

79

0

108

17

27

103

3

2

0

3

0

0

4

40

1

0

2

3

2

17

2

1

0

3

0

1

1

PALESTINIAN
PANAMA
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
PARAGUAY

PITCAIRN ISLANDS
POLAND
PORTUGAL
QATAR

RWANDA
SAN MARINO

SEYCHELLES
SIERRA LEONE
SINGAPORE
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
SLOVENIA

Page 7 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY
SOMALIA

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

318

115

0

63

54

18

102

SOUTH AFRICA

31

20

0

15

5

15

17

SOUTH KOREA

48

1

0

5

1

7

8

SOVIET UNION

460

189

0

70

41

37

115

6

0

0

8

0

2

2

206

85

0

47

15

35

32

ST. CHRISTOPHER-NEVIS

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

ST. KITTS, WEST INDIES

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

ST. LUCIA

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES

2

0

0

0

0

1

1

119

86

0

26

8

9

33

SUDAN

97

45

0

28

3

15

37

SURINAME

13

2

0

1

0

2

4

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

11

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

SYRIA

81

20

0

32

3

16

17

TAIWAN

12

2

0

2

0

1

1

6

4

0

2

0

1

1

TANZANIA

32

17

0

15

2

6

11

THAILAND

24

0

0

6

1

15

3

186

147

0

77

12

25

74

8

0

0

1

1

2

1

SPAIN
SRI LANKA

STATELESS - ALIEN UNABLE TO NAME A CO

SWAZILAND
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND

TAJIKISTAN (TADZHIK)

TOGO
TONGA

Page 8 of 9

February 2007 (SYB)

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology
Immigration Courts
FY 2006 Asylum Statistics
NATIONALITY

RECEIVED

GRANTED

CONDITIONAL

DENIED

ABANDONED

WITHDRAWN

OTHER

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

59

3

0

8

3

11

19

TUNISIA

26

0

0

8

1

8

8

TURKEY

67

34

0

26

3

24

20

TURKMENISTAN

45

22

0

9

2

3

12

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

UGANDA

61

36

0

32

1

11

27

UKRAINE

276

44

0

101

29

35

73

4

6

0

0

1

1

0

21

2

0

8

0

7

17

7

1

0

1

0

0

0

16

0

0

16

2

2

10

UZEBEKISTAN

247

95

0

62

17

28

50

VENEZUELA

980

279

0

589

68

158

216

VIETNAM

121

10

0

45

3

28

28

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

56

10

0

29

3

23

27

184

159

0

85

11

29

64

ZAIRE

11

5

0

11

1

3

4

ZAMBIA

29

8

0

4

6

3

16

210

62

0

70

19

35

49

3

16,556

3,924

TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED KINGDOM
UNKNOWN NATIONALITY
URUGUAY

WESTERN SAMOA
YEMEN
YUGOSLAVIA

ZIMBABWE
TOTAL

Page 9 of 9

54,432

13,340

10,351

13,859

February 2007 (SYB)