India
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
266
Grants
248
Denials
18
Immigration judge
Public EOIR asylum decision statistics
Grant rate
89.8%
1105 / 1231
Total decisions
1231
Merits decision sample in current public statistics
Grant rate
89.8%
Grants: 1105
Denial rate
10.2%
Denials: 126
Other relief rate
0.0%
Other relief: 0
This profile is summarized from public sources for background context only. It is not an ImmJudge evaluation.
Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Amber D. George as an immigration judge in March 2020. Judge George earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Notre Dame, a Master of International Management in 1992 from Thunderbird School of Global Management, and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the University of California, Hastings College ofthe Law. From 2003 to 2020, she was in private practice, in San Francisco, including her ownsolo practice from 2011 to 2013. From 1993 to 1999, she worked in the mobiletelecommunications field for Air Touch International (now Vodafone). Judge George is amember of the State Bar of California.
This summary is based on public material and may not reflect the latest assignment information.
Source: TRAC Judge Report · View original report
Community perspective
Read public experiences and process discussions related to Amber D George.
You can start with these public topics
This table shows anonymized case details. It does not include applicant names, case numbers, A Numbers, or EOIR internal case IDs. Results are informational only, not legal advice, and cannot predict any individual case outcome.
Showing 0 of 0
Review this judge's historical asylum outcomes for applicants from different nationalities.
| Nationality | Total decisions | Grants | Denials | Grant rate | Denial rate | Distribution | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
India Sufficient sample | 266 | 248 | 18 | 93.2% | 6.8% | View details | |
Guatemala Sufficient sample | 262 | 241 | 21 | 92.0% | 8.0% | View details | |
Spain Sufficient sample | 217 | 195 | 22 | 89.9% | 10.1% | View details | |
Mexico Sufficient sample | 172 | 148 | 24 | 86.0% | 14.0% | View details | |
Honduras Sufficient sample | 86 | 82 | 4 | 95.3% | 4.7% | View details | |
Niue Sufficient sample | 45 | 40 | 5 | 88.9% | 11.1% | View details | |
Switzerland Sufficient sample | 41 | 38 | 3 | 92.7% | 7.3% | View details | |
Nepal Moderate sample | 22 | 21 | 1 | 95.5% | 4.5% | View details | |
Colombia Moderate sample | 17 | 9 | 8 | 52.9% | 47.1% | View details | |
Eritrea Moderate sample | 15 | 14 | 1 | 93.3% | 6.7% | View details | |
Brazil Moderate sample | 14 | 9 | 5 | 64.3% | 35.7% | View details | |
Venezuela Moderate sample | 13 | 11 | 2 | 84.6% | 15.4% | View details | |
Russia Moderate sample | 10 | 10 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details | |
Peru Small sample | 8 | 2 | 6 | 25.0% | 75.0% | View details | |
Madagascar Small sample | 6 | 6 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details | |
Iraq Small sample | 5 | 5 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details | |
Afghanistan Small sample | 4 | 3 | 1 | 75.0% | 25.0% | View details | |
Jordan Small sample | 4 | 3 | 1 | 75.0% | 25.0% | View details | |
Turkiye Small sample | 3 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details | |
Argentina Small sample | 2 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details |
Total decisions
266
Grants
248
Denials
18
Total decisions
262
Grants
241
Denials
21
Total decisions
217
Grants
195
Denials
22
Total decisions
172
Grants
148
Denials
24
Total decisions
86
Grants
82
Denials
4
Total decisions
45
Grants
40
Denials
5
Total decisions
41
Grants
38
Denials
3
Total decisions
22
Grants
21
Denials
1
Total decisions
17
Grants
9
Denials
8
Total decisions
15
Grants
14
Denials
1
Total decisions
14
Grants
9
Denials
5
Total decisions
13
Grants
11
Denials
2
Total decisions
10
Grants
10
Denials
0
Total decisions
8
Grants
2
Denials
6
Total decisions
6
Grants
6
Denials
0
Total decisions
5
Grants
5
Denials
0
Total decisions
4
Grants
3
Denials
1
Total decisions
4
Grants
3
Denials
1
Total decisions
3
Grants
3
Denials
0
Total decisions
2
Grants
2
Denials
0
These statistics come from public EOIR data. They reflect historical statistics only, are not legal advice, and cannot predict any individual case outcome.
Status: active
Status: active
Status: active
Status: active
Status: active
Status: active
This website is for general information only and is not legal advice.