Bratton, Scott
This court
Decisiones totales
1251
Tasa de aprobación de asilo
19.7%
Denegaciones
80.3%
Tasa de otras formas de alivio
0.0%
Larger sample
Datos actualizados: 8 jul 2026
← Back to all courtsactive active active active active
Tribunal de inmigración
Indianapolis, Indiana Immigration Court
6 judges · IN
- City / state
- Indianapolis, Indiana, IN
- Data source
- EOIR Case Data
Tasa promedio de aprobación
11.7%
416 / 3566
Tasa promedio de aprobación
11.7%
Aprobaciones de asilo
416
Denegaciones
3150
Jueces incluidos
6
Indianapolis, Indiana Immigration Court has 6 indexed immigration judges. Court-level statistics are based on public EOIR records.
Jueces incluidos en este tribunal
Review asylum decision statistics for indexed judges at this court.
active
Burch, Valerie A
This court
Decisiones totales
987
Tasa de aprobación de asilo
26.2%
Denegaciones
73.8%
Tasa de otras formas de alivio
0.0%
Larger sample
Datos actualizados: 8 jul 2026
Conklin, Daniel B
This court
Decisiones totales
791
Tasa de aprobación de asilo
12.8%
Denegaciones
87.2%
Tasa de otras formas de alivio
0.0%
Larger sample
Datos actualizados: 8 jul 2026
Barrow, Sarjo
This court
Decisiones totales
650
Tasa de aprobación de asilo
14.3%
Denegaciones
85.7%
Tasa de otras formas de alivio
0.0%
Larger sample
Datos actualizados: 8 jul 2026
Miller, Jane Chace
This court
Decisiones totales
643
Tasa de aprobación de asilo
0.5%
Denegaciones
99.5%
Tasa de otras formas de alivio
0.0%
Larger sample
Datos actualizados: 8 jul 2026
Kight, Megan
This court
Decisiones totales
Pendiente
Tasa de aprobación de asilo
Pendiente
Denegaciones
Pendiente
Tasa de otras formas de alivio
Pendiente
No statistics yet
Datos actualizados: 8 jul 2026
Grant rate by nationality
| Nationality | Grant rate | Grants | Denials | Decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NICARAGUA | 11.6% | 72 | 547 | 619 |
| VENEZUELA | 29.6% | 170 | 405 | 575 |
| GUATEMALA | 2.9% | 12 | 395 | 407 |
| HONDURAS | 4.3% | 16 | 353 | 369 |
| MEXICO | 3.7% | 10 | 258 | 268 |
| NIGERIA | 21.7% | 55 | 198 | 253 |
| INDIA | 3.1% | 7 | 222 | 229 |
| EL SALVADOR | 2.2% | 4 | 174 | 178 |
| HAITI | 4.6% | 7 | 145 | 152 |
| COLOMBIA | 5.6% | 7 | 117 | 124 |
| MAURITANIA | 19.6% | 9 | 37 | 46 |
| RUSSIA | 15.2% | 5 | 28 | 33 |
| CUBA | 17.9% | 5 | 23 | 28 |
| ECUADOR | 0.0% | 0 | 27 | 27 |
| PERU | 0.0% | 0 | 26 | 26 |
| GUINEA | 13.6% | 3 | 19 | 22 |
| SENEGAL | 0.0% | 0 | 22 | 22 |
| VIETNAM | 4.5% | 1 | 21 | 22 |
| CHINA | 35.0% | 7 | 13 | 20 |
| CHILE | 0.0% | 0 | 13 | 13 |
| BRAZIL | 8.3% | 1 | 11 | 12 |
| PANAMA | 9.1% | 1 | 10 | 11 |
| NIGER | 0.0% | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| SUDAN | 25.0% | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| CAMEROON | 0.0% | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| EGYPT | 57.1% | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO | 0.0% | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| PAKISTAN | 0.0% | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| BOLIVIA | 0.0% | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| COSTA RICA | 50.0% | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| GHANA | 0.0% | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| KENYA | 25.0% | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| MALAWI | 0.0% | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| YEMEN | 100.0% | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| BURMA (MYANMAR) | 0.0% | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| CONGO | 66.7% | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| ERITREA | 33.3% | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| ANGOLA | 50.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| BENIN | 0.0% | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| CHAD | 0.0% | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| JAMAICA | 50.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| RWANDA | 50.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| SOMALIA | 0.0% | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| TAJIKISTAN (TADZHIK) | 50.0% | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| ZIMBABWE | 0.0% | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| AFGHANISTAN | 100.0% | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| BURKINA FASO | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| BURUNDI | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GUADELOUPE | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| IRAQ | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| IVORY COAST (COTE D'IVOIRE) | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| KIRGHIZIA (KYRGYZSTAN) | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MALI | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| NIUE | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| SIERRA LEONE | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| SOUTH AFRICA | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| SPAIN | 100.0% | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| SRI LANKA | 100.0% | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| TOGO | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| TURKIYE | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| UGANDA | 100.0% | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| UKRAINE | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| UNITED ARAB EMIRATES | 0.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Data source and disclaimer
Data comes from public EOIR records. It is for informational use only, is not legal advice, and cannot predict any individual case outcome.