Spain
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
56
Grants
21
Denials
35
Grant rate: 37.5%Denial rate: 62.5%
Immigration judge
Sondra J Miller-Wein
Community discussion · 0Public EOIR asylum decision statistics
- Status
- active
- Data source
- EOIR Case Data
Grant rate
44.3%
176 / 397
Total decisions
397
Merits decision sample in current public statistics
Grant rate
44.3%
Grants: 176
Denial rate
55.7%
Denials: 221
Other relief rate
0.0%
Other relief: 0
Judge profile
This profile is summarized from public sources for background context only. It is not an ImmJudge evaluation.
Sondra J. Miller-Wein was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in November 2023. Judge Miller-Wein earned a Bachelor of Science in 1985 from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a Juris Doctor in 1992 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. From 2009 to 2023, she established and managed her law firm, Immigration Law Options LLC. From 2008 to 2009, she practiced immigration law with the Law Firm of David E. Piver, and from 2004 to 2008, was a staff attorney at HIAS Philadelphia. From 1997 to 2004, she was a general practitioner handling state court civil cases. From 1994 to 1997, she was an insurance defense litigator with Robert L. Hammond. From 1992 to 1993, she clerked for President Judge Robert A. Freedberg of the Court of Common Pleas. Her volunteer work included serving as chair of the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, as board chair of Esperanza Immigration Legal Services, and as president of the Doylestown Chapter of Hadassah. Judge Miller-Wein is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.
This summary is based on public material and may not reflect the latest assignment information.
Source: TRAC Judge Report · View original report
Outcome distribution
Grants176 / 397
Denials221 / 397
Other relief0 / 397
Community perspective
Community discussion
Read public experiences and process discussions related to Sondra J Miller-Wein.
0 topics
You can start with these public topics
- Share a public process or preparation experience
- Discuss how to interpret public data
- Ask a question without personal case details
Case details
0 rowsThis 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.
Case Ratio
-
Distribution
Showing 0 of 0
View by applicant nationality
Review this judge's historical asylum outcomes for applicants from different nationalities.
| Nationality | Total decisions | Grants | Denials | Grant rate | Denial rate | Distribution | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spain Sufficient sample | 56 | 21 | 35 | 37.5% | 62.5% | View details | |
Cameroon Sufficient sample | 52 | 33 | 19 | 63.5% | 36.5% | View details | |
Venezuela Sufficient sample | 40 | 16 | 24 | 40.0% | 60.0% | View details | |
Honduras Sufficient sample | 39 | 16 | 23 | 41.0% | 59.0% | View details | |
Guatemala Sufficient sample | 35 | 5 | 30 | 14.3% | 85.7% | View details | |
Peru Sufficient sample | 30 | 14 | 16 | 46.7% | 53.3% | View details | |
Ethiopia Moderate sample | 22 | 18 | 4 | 81.8% | 18.2% | View details | |
Niue Moderate sample | 20 | 13 | 7 | 65.0% | 35.0% | View details | |
Russia Moderate sample | 14 | 13 | 1 | 92.9% | 7.1% | View details | |
Colombia Moderate sample | 11 | 1 | 10 | 9.1% | 90.9% | View details | |
Singapore Moderate sample | 11 | 0 | 11 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Mexico Small sample | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Guinea Small sample | 7 | 5 | 2 | 71.4% | 28.6% | View details | |
Afghanistan Small sample | 6 | 6 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details | |
Brazil Small sample | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Pakistan Small sample | 6 | 6 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details | |
St. Barthélemy Small sample | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Switzerland Small sample | 4 | 1 | 3 | 25.0% | 75.0% | View details | |
Ecuador Small sample | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Nicaragua Small sample | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details |
View details
Cameroon
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
52
Grants
33
Denials
19
Grant rate: 63.5%Denial rate: 36.5%
Venezuela
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
40
Grants
16
Denials
24
Grant rate: 40.0%Denial rate: 60.0%
Honduras
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
39
Grants
16
Denials
23
Grant rate: 41.0%Denial rate: 59.0%
Guatemala
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
35
Grants
5
Denials
30
Grant rate: 14.3%Denial rate: 85.7%
Peru
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
30
Grants
14
Denials
16
Grant rate: 46.7%Denial rate: 53.3%
Ethiopia
Moderate sampleTotal decisions
22
Grants
18
Denials
4
Grant rate: 81.8%Denial rate: 18.2%
Niue
Moderate sampleTotal decisions
20
Grants
13
Denials
7
Grant rate: 65.0%Denial rate: 35.0%
Russia
Moderate sampleTotal decisions
14
Grants
13
Denials
1
Grant rate: 92.9%Denial rate: 7.1%
Colombia
Moderate sampleTotal decisions
11
Grants
1
Denials
10
Grant rate: 9.1%Denial rate: 90.9%
Singapore
Moderate sampleTotal decisions
11
Grants
0
Denials
11
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Mexico
Small sampleTotal decisions
8
Grants
0
Denials
8
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Guinea
Small sampleTotal decisions
7
Grants
5
Denials
2
Grant rate: 71.4%Denial rate: 28.6%
Afghanistan
Small sampleTotal decisions
6
Grants
6
Denials
0
Grant rate: 100.0%Denial rate: 0.0%
Brazil
Small sampleTotal decisions
6
Grants
0
Denials
6
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Pakistan
Small sampleTotal decisions
6
Grants
6
Denials
0
Grant rate: 100.0%Denial rate: 0.0%
St. Barthélemy
Small sampleTotal decisions
6
Grants
0
Denials
6
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Switzerland
Small sampleTotal decisions
4
Grants
1
Denials
3
Grant rate: 25.0%Denial rate: 75.0%
Ecuador
Small sampleTotal decisions
3
Grants
0
Denials
3
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Nicaragua
Small sampleTotal decisions
3
Grants
0
Denials
3
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
These statistics come from public EOIR data. They reflect historical statistics only, are not legal advice, and cannot predict any individual case outcome.
Other judges at the same immigration court
Matthew Bohrer
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 31.6%
- Denial Rate
- 68.5%
Tanisha Bowens
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 44.6%
- Denial Rate
- 55.4%
Mark K Brooks
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 25.7%
- Denial Rate
- 74.3%
Michael J. Creppy
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 25.0%
- Denial Rate
- 75.0%
Claudia Cubas
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 73.4%
- Denial Rate
- 26.6%
Irma Diaz
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 12.4%
- Denial Rate
- 87.6%
This website is for general information only and is not legal advice.