Mexico
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
185
Grants
1
Denials
184
Grant rate: 0.5%Denial rate: 99.5%
Immigration judge
Iman Ghasri
Community discussion · 0Public EOIR asylum decision statistics
- Status
- active
- Data source
- EOIR Case Data
Grant rate
13.4%
118 / 877
Total decisions
877
Merits decision sample in current public statistics
Grant rate
13.4%
Grants: 118
Denial rate
86.5%
Denials: 759
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.
Iman Ghasri was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in March 2022. Judge Ghasri earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science in 2001 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 2004 from the University of Miami School of Law. From 2006 to 2022, he was in private practice in San Diego and Orange counties in Southern California, with the last 12 years dedicated to the field of immigration law. Judge Ghasri is a member 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
Outcome distribution
Grants118 / 877
Denials759 / 877
Other relief0 / 877
Community perspective
Community discussion
Read public experiences and process discussions related to Iman Ghasri.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mexico Sufficient sample | 185 | 1 | 184 | 0.5% | 99.5% | View details | |
Colombia Sufficient sample | 110 | 10 | 100 | 9.1% | 90.9% | View details | |
Switzerland Sufficient sample | 90 | 29 | 61 | 32.2% | 67.8% | View details | |
Niue Sufficient sample | 85 | 5 | 80 | 5.9% | 94.1% | View details | |
India Sufficient sample | 63 | 3 | 60 | 4.8% | 95.2% | View details | |
Guatemala Sufficient sample | 58 | 0 | 58 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Russia Sufficient sample | 49 | 28 | 21 | 57.1% | 42.9% | View details | |
Romania Sufficient sample | 40 | 0 | 40 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Spain Sufficient sample | 40 | 0 | 40 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Honduras Sufficient sample | 32 | 1 | 31 | 3.1% | 96.9% | View details | |
Peru Sufficient sample | 32 | 0 | 32 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Venezuela Moderate sample | 14 | 7 | 7 | 50.0% | 50.0% | View details | |
Iran Moderate sample | 11 | 10 | 1 | 90.9% | 9.1% | View details | |
Belize Small sample | 7 | 4 | 3 | 57.1% | 42.9% | View details | |
Egypt Small sample | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0% | 60.0% | View details | |
Kazakhstan Small sample | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Kyrgyzstan Small sample | 5 | 5 | 0 | 100.0% | 0.0% | View details | |
Syria Small sample | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0% | 60.0% | View details | |
Vietnam Small sample | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details | |
Argentina Small sample | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.0% | 100.0% | View details |
View details
Colombia
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
110
Grants
10
Denials
100
Grant rate: 9.1%Denial rate: 90.9%
Switzerland
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
90
Grants
29
Denials
61
Grant rate: 32.2%Denial rate: 67.8%
Niue
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
85
Grants
5
Denials
80
Grant rate: 5.9%Denial rate: 94.1%
India
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
63
Grants
3
Denials
60
Grant rate: 4.8%Denial rate: 95.2%
Guatemala
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
58
Grants
0
Denials
58
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Russia
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
49
Grants
28
Denials
21
Grant rate: 57.1%Denial rate: 42.9%
Romania
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
40
Grants
0
Denials
40
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Spain
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
40
Grants
0
Denials
40
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Honduras
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
32
Grants
1
Denials
31
Grant rate: 3.1%Denial rate: 96.9%
Peru
Sufficient sampleTotal decisions
32
Grants
0
Denials
32
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Venezuela
Moderate sampleTotal decisions
14
Grants
7
Denials
7
Grant rate: 50.0%Denial rate: 50.0%
Iran
Moderate sampleTotal decisions
11
Grants
10
Denials
1
Grant rate: 90.9%Denial rate: 9.1%
Belize
Small sampleTotal decisions
7
Grants
4
Denials
3
Grant rate: 57.1%Denial rate: 42.9%
Egypt
Small sampleTotal decisions
5
Grants
2
Denials
3
Grant rate: 40.0%Denial rate: 60.0%
Kazakhstan
Small sampleTotal decisions
5
Grants
0
Denials
5
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Kyrgyzstan
Small sampleTotal decisions
5
Grants
5
Denials
0
Grant rate: 100.0%Denial rate: 0.0%
Syria
Small sampleTotal decisions
5
Grants
2
Denials
3
Grant rate: 40.0%Denial rate: 60.0%
Vietnam
Small sampleTotal decisions
5
Grants
0
Denials
5
Grant rate: 0.0%Denial rate: 100.0%
Argentina
Small sampleTotal decisions
4
Grants
0
Denials
4
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
Roberto Amaya
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 12.5%
- Denial Rate
- 87.5%
Alicia Brooks
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 24.1%
- Denial Rate
- 75.9%
Matthew Chan
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 23.8%
- Denial Rate
- 76.2%
Andrew Fishkin
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 30.9%
- Denial Rate
- 69.1%
Darin Flagg
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 11.1%
- Denial Rate
- 88.9%
Leon J Francis
Status: active
- Asylum Grant Rate
- 17.0%
- Denial Rate
- 83.0%
This website is for general information only and is not legal advice.