Guatemala
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
112
Grants
28
Denials
84
Immigration judge
Public EOIR asylum decision statistics
Grant rate
21.6%
119 / 550
Total decisions
550
Merits decision sample in current public statistics
Grant rate
21.6%
Grants: 119
Denial rate
78.4%
Denials: 431
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.
Wade T. Napier was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisoryimmigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Napier earned a Bachelor of Science in 2001 from Transylvania University and a Juris Doctor in 2005 from Northern Kentucky University–Salmon P. Chase College of Law. From 2008 to 2021, he servedas an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, in Lexington. In 2008, heserved as a Staff Attorney for a Trial Court Judge, in Boone County, Kentucky. From 2005 to 2007, he worked in the Claims Litigation Department of Great American Insurance Company, in Cincinnati. Judge Napier is a member of the Kentucky Bar.
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 Wade Thomas Napier.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guatemala Sufficient sample | 112 | 28 | 84 | 25.0% | 75.0% | View details | |
Spain Sufficient sample | 87 | 17 | 70 | 19.5% | 80.5% | View details | |
Honduras Sufficient sample | 86 | 15 | 71 | 17.4% | 82.6% | View details | |
Brazil Sufficient sample | 32 | 3 | 29 | 9.4% | 90.6% | View details | |
Cameroon Moderate sample | 21 | 9 | 12 | 42.9% | 57.1% | View details | |
India Moderate sample | 19 | 2 | 17 | 10.5% | 89.5% | View details | |
Mexico Moderate sample | 18 | 1 | 17 | 5.6% | 94.4% | View details | |
Nicaragua Moderate sample | 17 | 9 | 8 | 52.9% | 47.1% | View details | |
Niue Moderate sample | 15 | 2 | 13 | 13.3% | 86.7% | View details | |
Ecuador Moderate sample | 14 | 2 | 12 | 14.3% | 85.7% | View details | |
Russia Moderate sample | 13 | 0 | 13 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Haiti Moderate sample | 10 | 3 | 7 | 30.0% | 70.0% | View details | |
Venezuela Moderate sample | 10 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | 50.0% | View details | |
Ukraine Small sample | 8 | 2 | 6 | 25.0% | 75.0% | View details | |
Colombia Small sample | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Georgia Small sample | 6 | 1 | 5 | 16.7% | 83.3% | View details | |
Singapore Small sample | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Kyrgyzstan Small sample | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Nepal Small sample | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20.0% | 80.0% | View details | |
Switzerland Small sample | 5 | 1 | 4 | 20.0% | 80.0% | View details |
Total decisions
112
Grants
28
Denials
84
Total decisions
87
Grants
17
Denials
70
Total decisions
86
Grants
15
Denials
71
Total decisions
32
Grants
3
Denials
29
Total decisions
21
Grants
9
Denials
12
Total decisions
19
Grants
2
Denials
17
Total decisions
18
Grants
1
Denials
17
Total decisions
17
Grants
9
Denials
8
Total decisions
15
Grants
2
Denials
13
Total decisions
14
Grants
2
Denials
12
Total decisions
13
Grants
0
Denials
13
Total decisions
10
Grants
3
Denials
7
Total decisions
10
Grants
5
Denials
5
Total decisions
8
Grants
2
Denials
6
Total decisions
6
Grants
0
Denials
6
Total decisions
6
Grants
1
Denials
5
Total decisions
6
Grants
0
Denials
6
Total decisions
5
Grants
0
Denials
5
Total decisions
5
Grants
1
Denials
4
Total decisions
5
Grants
1
Denials
4
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.