AsylumCompass
Saved
English

This historical identity has not been confirmed. Records cannot be attributed to this person.

From FY2021 to FY2025, 24 of 172 asylum grant-or-denial records under judge code DKJ at Charlotte were grants (13.95%) and 148 were denials (86.05%). In the same years, the court recorded 11.78% and the national figure was 37.33%. EOIR data through 2026-08-31; past records do not predict an individual case.

Recorded grant share · Charlotte · CHL

Grants 24 · Denials 148 · N 172
95% interval: 9.56%–19.92%

Judge code DKJ
13.95%N 172
Charlotte
11.78%N 5,899
United States · all courts
37.33%N 367,995

Among comparable judge codes at this court

20 judge codes at this court have 100 or more grant-or-denial records in FY2021–FY2025. Their recorded grant shares range from 0.84% to 36.81%; the median is 9.66%.
FY2026 so far
2.88%104 records through 2026-08-31 · court: 4.39%
Record coverage
10 courts with recordsFY2024–FY2026 · 18 court-years · Courts are not pooled
Data through
2026-08-31EOIR records · not on the official listing checked 2026-09-16Data and sources

Historical outcomes by court

Each row is a fiscal year at the court stored on the dated record. Courts are not pooled; an official listing never moves old results to a new court. Small groups remain visible and are labeled.

Judge figures group saved asylum outcomes by the judge code on each EOIR proceeding. The code identifies the assigned judge; these records do not verify who personally made every application decision. How judge figures work

Recorded grant share by fiscal year at Charlotte

0%10%20%30%40%50%FY2024FY2025FY202644.44%12.27%2.88%19.40%7.08%4.39%43.52%23.13%
  • Judge code DKJ
  • Charlotte
  • United States · all courts
National figures are published for FY2021–FY2025. A broken ring marks a value from fewer than 100 records.
Recorded grant and denial outcomes · EOIR dated records
Completion FYRecorded grant shareTotal (N)Grant recordsDenial records95% interval
Charlotte · CHLExplore this court's full context
FY2026Partial year2.88%10431010.99%–8.14%
FY202512.27%163201438.09%–18.19%
FY202444.44%Small sample94518.88%–73.33%
Baltimore · BALExplore this court's full context
FY2026Partial year0.00%Small sample4040.00%–48.99%
FY202528.13%Small sample64184618.59%–40.13%
FY202464.71%Small sample1711641.30%–82.69%
Los Fresnos · PEPExplore this court's full context
FY2026Partial year11.54%Small sample263234.00%–28.98%
FY20250.00%Small sample707<0.01%–35.43%
Sterling · STEExplore this court's full context
FY2026Partial year100.00%Small sample11020.65%–100.00%
FY202585.71%Small sample76148.69%–97.43%
FY202433.33%Small sample6249.68%–70.00%
Annandale · ANNExplore this court's full context
FY2026Partial year0.00%Small sample303<0.01%–56.15%
FY202525.00%Small sample8267.15%–59.07%
Pearsall · PSDExplore this court's full context
FY20250.00%Small sample24024<0.01%–13.80%
Conroe · CICExplore this court's full context
FY20250.00%Small sample606<0.01%–39.03%
LaSalle · JNAExplore this court's full context
FY202533.33%Small sample6249.68%–70.00%
Oakdale · OAKExplore this court's full context
FY20250.00%Small sample4040.00%–48.99%
Annandale · WASExplore this court's full context
FY20250.00%Small sample1010.00%–79.35%

Small sample: fewer than 100 grant or denial records. This share can swing widely.

These records do not predict an individual result or measure judge quality. A person may have more than one proceeding.

Source cutoff: 2026-08-31 · eoir-2026-08-judge-records-v2 · Source files and checks · Attribution details

Historical grant and denial records by nationality

Nationality groups count grant and denial proceedings in FY2021–FY2025, not people.

The dated results have a different coverage period and do not contain individual nationality. Small groups can change sharply.

Recorded judge × court × nationality · FY2021–FY2025 and each fiscal year
Recorded nationalityFY2021–FY2025 · pooledTotal (N)Court · same nationalityFY2025FY2024FY2023FY2022FY2021
Charlotte
Honduras0.00%Small sample507.63% · N 1,5980 / 460 / 4———
Mexico0.00%Small sample253.03% · N 8570 / 25————
Brazil0.00%Small sample192.61% · N 4220 / 19————
Colombia26.67%Small sample157.60% · N 3290 / 114 / 4———
El Salvador8.33%Small sample1210.08% · N 6151 / 12————
Guatemala0.00%Small sample118.41% · N 7250 / 11————
Russia50.00%Small sample1066.00% · N 1005 / 90 / 1———
Belarus100.00%Small sample690.91% · N 116 / 6————
Peru0.00%Small sample60.00% · N 670 / 6————
Venezuela60.00%Small sample531.14% · N 4403 / 5————
Egypt100.00%Small sample485.71% · N 144 / 4————
Cuba50.00%Small sample222.73% · N 441 / 2————
Nicaragua0.00%Small sample217.20% · N 2500 / 2————
Bolivia0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 40 / 1————
India0.00%Small sample120.00% · N 350 / 1————
Romania0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 120 / 1————
Senegal0.00%Small sample15.88% · N 510 / 1————
Uzbekistan0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 30 / 1————
Baltimore
El Salvador12.50%Small sample1646.97% · N 1,9442 / 150 / 1———
Honduras30.77%Small sample1346.18% · N 1,1392 / 92 / 4———
Nicaragua83.33%Small sample1261.47% · N 2186 / 74 / 5———
Guatemala0.00%Small sample1139.58% · N 8010 / 11————
Cameroon100.00%Small sample778.72% · N 2824 / 43 / 3———
Nigeria0.00%Small sample457.86% · N 1590 / 4————
Peru0.00%Small sample412.61% · N 1110 / 30 / 1———
Venezuela33.33%Small sample347.62% · N 1471 / 3————
Cuba0.00%Small sample272.73% · N 110 / 2————
Russia50.00%Small sample250.79% · N 630 / 11 / 1———
Belize0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 4—0 / 1———
Congo100.00%Small sample190.00% · N 101 / 1————
India0.00%Small sample135.35% · N 990 / 1————
Nepal100.00%Small sample150.00% · N 581 / 1————
Pakistan100.00%Small sample172.92% · N 48—1 / 1———
Turkiye100.00%Small sample163.64% · N 331 / 1————
Yemen0.00%Small sample150.00% · N 40 / 1————
Pearsall
Venezuela0.00%Small sample415.03% · N 1530 / 4————
Cuba0.00%Small sample328.37% · N 1410 / 3————
Colombia0.00%Small sample24.27% · N 1170 / 2————
El Salvador0.00%Small sample21.39% · N 1440 / 2————
Iran0.00%Small sample217.39% · N 460 / 2————
Afghanistan0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 190 / 1————
Cameroon0.00%Small sample152.63% · N 380 / 1————
China0.00%Small sample113.64% · N 220 / 1————
Guatemala0.00%Small sample11.16% · N 860 / 1————
Honduras0.00%Small sample10.92% · N 3270 / 1————
India0.00%Small sample18.33% · N 120 / 1————
Jordan0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 130 / 1————
Mexico0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 1590 / 1————
Pakistan0.00%Small sample115.38% · N 130 / 1————
Somalia0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 50 / 1————
Sudan0.00%Small sample122.22% · N 90 / 1————
Sterling · STE
Honduras100.00%Small sample629.31% · N 1,6244 / 42 / 2———
Mexico0.00%Small sample413.52% · N 281—0 / 4———
El Salvador100.00%Small sample234.78% · N 1,8462 / 2————
Egypt0.00%Small sample169.15% · N 940 / 1————
Annandale · ANN
Honduras20.00%Small sample519.56% · N 7671 / 5————
Cuba0.00%Small sample110.00% · N 100 / 1————
Ethiopia100.00%Small sample156.31% · N 1031 / 1————
Mauritania0.00%Small sample117.50% · N 1600 / 1————
Los Fresnos · PEP
Cuba0.00%Small sample211.11% · N 360 / 2————
Congo0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 90 / 1————
El Salvador0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 400 / 1————
Mauritania0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 20 / 1————
Mexico0.00%Small sample16.25% · N 800 / 1————
Vietnam0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 30 / 1————
Conroe
Burkina Faso0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 20 / 1————
Colombia0.00%Small sample11.68% · N 1790 / 1————
Ecuador0.00%Small sample12.63% · N 760 / 1————
El Salvador0.00%Small sample10.51% · N 1950 / 1————
Honduras0.00%Small sample10.63% · N 3180 / 1————
Mauritania0.00%Small sample13.79% · N 1320 / 1————
LaSalle
Afghanistan0.00%Small sample134.38% · N 960 / 1————
Azerbaijan0.00%Small sample120.00% · N 50 / 1————
Cameroon100.00%Small sample146.28% · N 1211 / 1————
Cuba0.00%Small sample136.36% · N 880 / 1————
Moldavia (Moldova)100.00%Small sample150.00% · N 41 / 1————
Turkiye0.00%Small sample117.46% · N 1260 / 1————
Oakdale
Eritrea0.00%Small sample115.91% · N 440 / 1————
Laos0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 20 / 1————
Mexico0.00%Small sample11.32% · N 1510 / 1————
Nepal0.00%Small sample10.00% · N 300 / 1————
Annandale · WAS
Eritrea0.00%Small sample180.43% · N 460 / 1————

Small sample: fewer than 100 grant or denial records. This share can swing widely. Each fiscal year shows grants / N; — means no grant or denial record that year.

Judge means the code saved on the proceeding, not independently verified decision authorship. Flags are visual aids for mapped source categories; historical, unknown and non-geographic categories remain text-only.

EOIR CASE nationality aggregates · eoir-2026-08-nationality-complete-v1 · Download complete counts

Hearing schedule

One proceeding record is not necessarily a separate hearing session.

Charlotte · CHL · All proceedings · 2026-09–2029-08

Asylum-associated records are a subset of All proceedings.

Schedule display range: 2026-09–2029-08 (36 months)

All Master and Individual schedule records in this view were excluded by the counting rules. See the coverage details.

Monthly counts are available for all recorded courts below.

Annandale · ANN

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Baltimore · BAL

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Charlotte · CHL

Monthly counts

Derek Julius · DKJ · Charlotte · CHL · 2026-09–2029-08 · All proceedings · Asylum-associated proceedings · Proceedings with recorded hearing dates · EOIR · 2026-08 edition
MonthAll proceedings · Master proceedingsAll proceedings · Individual proceedingsAsylum-associated proceedings · Master proceedingsAsylum-associated proceedings · Individual proceedings
2026-090000
2026-100000
2026-110000
2026-120000
2027-010000
2027-020000
2027-030000
2027-040000
2027-050000
2027-060000
2027-070000
2027-080000
2027-090000
2027-100000
2027-110000
2027-120000
2028-010000
2028-020000
2028-030000
2028-040000
2028-050000
2028-060000
2028-070000
2028-080000
2028-090000
2028-100000
2028-110000
2028-120000
2029-010000
2029-020000
2029-030000
2029-040000
2029-050000
2029-060000
2029-070000
2029-080000

Retained: 0Excluded: 27Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Conroe · CIC

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Hyattsville · HYA

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

LaSalle · JNA

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Oakdale · OAK

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Los Fresnos · PEP

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Pearsall · PSD

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Sterling · STE

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Annandale · WAS

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0Source files and checks

Dated result records

Nationality and representation selections do not filter this list. Case identifiers and personal attributes are not included.

Results for the current selection

Loading associated results…

These dates belong to proceedings associated with the recorded judge code. They do not establish when that person served or who made the application decision.

Monthly record distribution for this selection

Filtered records by court and fiscal year

All eight saved result categories · same filters as the result list
Historical record courtFiscal yearGrantedDeniedRecorded as abandonedRecorded as withdrawnRecorded as not adjudicatedRecorded as administratively closedOther recorded categoriesNo application result recordedTotal records

Each row totals its eight categories using the current filters. Fiscal years run from 10-01 through 09-30.

One row per eligible proceeding · latest completion date first
Proceeding completion dateHistorical record courtSaved application result

Counts use stored proceeding completion dates and judge codes. Later source releases may revise earlier records.

Source cutoff: 2026-08-31 · eoir-2026-08-judge-records-v2 · Source files and checks

Recorded BIA appeals associated with this judge code

These records are linked to proceedings carrying this EOIR judge code in the 2026-08 source snapshot. The data do not establish that the coded judge personally issued the decision under BIA review.

Historical decision FY2021–FY2025 pooled · respondent-filed appeals (A)

Denominator: respondent-filed BIA IJ Case Appeal events with an exact proceeding link and stored judge code, with a recorded disposition during the displayed period.

Respondent-filed recorded BIA appeal events during FY2021–FY2025
Appeal events (denominator)DIS · recorded dismissal/affirmanceREM · remand as recordedSUS · appeal sustained as recordedOther · mixed recorded dispositions
51004

Small sample: N is below 100. Counts remain visible; a few events can change the pattern substantially.

Questions about these records

Is this the judge’s asylum approval or denial rate?

It is the recorded grant share: of 172 asylum grant-or-denial records under judge code DKJ at Charlotte in FY2021–FY2025, 24 were grants (13.95%) and 148 were denials (86.05%).

Withdrawals, abandonment, administrative closure and other outcomes are outside this denominator. The judge code identifies the assigned judge; it does not prove who decided each application.

Why do other websites show a different number?

Publications count different things. This page counts asylum applications that ended in a grant or a denial in EOIR’s public CASE data, by fiscal year, at the court stored on each proceeding, and never pools courts.

Other reports may count other relief, such as withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture, count decisions rather than proceedings, combine courts or use other years. Compare the period, the population and N before comparing percentages.

Why are courts listed separately?

Each record keeps the court stored on its proceeding. This judge code has grant or denial records at 10 courts. They are shown separately and never pooled, and the official listing does not move older records to a new court.

Why is FY2026 marked as a partial year?

Fiscal year 2026 runs from 2025-10-01 to 2026-09-30, and the source data end on 2026-08-31. FY2026 figures cover only part of the year, so they are not compared with complete years.

What does a small sample mean here?

When fewer than 100 grant or denial records stand behind a share, one or two decisions can move it by several percentage points. Such figures are marked † or labeled as a small sample, and the 95% interval shows how wide the uncertainty is.

Can these numbers predict my case?

No. They describe past records under a judge code. The outcome of a case depends on its own facts, evidence and law. For advice about your case, talk to a qualified lawyer or accredited representative.

Data and sources

Source cutoff: · eoir-2026-08-judge-source-coverage-v1

Dated asylum records and recorded grants or denials are available by court and fiscal year.

Result record coverage

1,222Associated proceeding records
817Proceedings linked to asylum applications
812Eligible dated asylum records
460Dated grant or denial records

All courts and all stored dates in this source edition. These coverage counts do not change with the result-list filters.

Historical record courts
18
Earliest recorded completion FY
FY2023
Latest recorded completion FY
FY2026 · Partial year
Why some source records are outside the dated results
  • 5 eligible asylum records have no completion date.
  • 27 eligible asylum records have no application result; 27 of them appear in the dated list.

A blank date or result does not establish a pending case, an undecided application, or the absence of a decision. Missing dates are not assigned to an assumed fiscal year.

All eligible dated result categories are included through the source cutoff, without aggregate suppression filters.

Source cutoff: 2026-08-31 · FY2026 is incomplete. Earlier stored dates may predate a judge’s appointment because assignment and saved completion date describe different events.

Nationality and representation selections do not filter this list. Case identifiers and personal attributes are not included.

Available historical coverage

Source coverage includes all normalized dated records for this identity. It is not verified decision authorship or a complete case history.

Coverage counting rules

Counts describe stored proceedings associated with the judge code, not unique cases, people, or verified decision authorship. Asylum applications are combined per proceeding using the same joins and conflict rules as the dated list.

817 asylum-linked proceedings meet the proceeding-type, case-link and result-consistency rules. These eligible records split into missing dates, invalid dates, dates after the cutoff, and dated records through the cutoff.

The dated list includes all saved result categories, including a blank result. Grant share uses only dated grants divided by dated grants plus denials; other categories are excluded.

These are saved results on proceedings assigned to the selected judge in EOIR data, not independently verified decision authorship. The application result has no separate decision timestamp. Completion dates may reflect a different event or later edits.

Each row represents one eligible proceeding after duplicate application rows are combined. Identical dates and results can appear multiple times. A person may have multiple proceedings. Within-day order does not indicate the sequence of decisions.

The public timeline includes all eight saved result categories and all stored completion years through the source cutoff. Conflicting application outcomes and inconsistent case joins remain excluded. Complete records can reconstruct counts hidden in legacy aggregate tables; those tables no longer provide a non-reconstruction guarantee.

Official court listing

Directory checked: EOIR hearing directory

Not on the checked official listing

The checked listing does not establish why this name is absent or where this person works now.

Hearing schedule sources

Schedule filtering and source checks

The 2026-08 EOIR edition is grouped using a source cutoff of 2026-08-31. Counts describe proceeding records with retained future hearing dates, grouped by the judge and court codes stored on each schedule record. Records with a handling reason and other excluded records are kept outside the counts; records that cannot be confirmed are listed separately. All proceedings includes the reliably identified asylum-associated subset.

Later recorded hearing dates are included in the source coverage summary.

All proceedings · future hearing dates through 2036-08-31

These source coverage counts include all proceedings and do not change with the proceedings filter above.

Annandale

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
36
Reliable asylum association
31
No identifiable asylum association
5

Baltimore

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
497
Reliable asylum association
420
No identifiable asylum association
77

Charlotte

Retained: 0Excluded: 27Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
27
Unconfirmed proportion
0.00%
Recorded handling reason
27
Historical schedule records
1,856
Future schedule records
27
Reliable asylum association
1,331
No identifiable asylum association
552

Conroe

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
14
Reliable asylum association
13
No identifiable asylum association
1

Hyattsville

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
4
No identifiable asylum association
4

LaSalle

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
23
Reliable asylum association
21
No identifiable asylum association
2

Oakdale

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
17
Reliable asylum association
17

Los Fresnos · PEP

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
216
Reliable asylum association
125
No identifiable asylum association
91

Pearsall

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
75
Reliable asylum association
44
No identifiable asylum association
31

Sterling · STE

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
68
Reliable asylum association
68

Annandale

Retained: 0Excluded: 0Unable to confirm: 0

Raw Master and Individual records
0
Unconfirmed proportion
Not calculable
Historical schedule records
98
Reliable asylum association
64
No identifiable asylum association
34
View schedule counting rules
Source files, versions and checks

BIA appeal sources

BIA scope and counting rules

These are historical pooled counts, not a judge score or a current pattern. This product has no annual judge-code breakdown. DIS does not prove this judge was affirmed; REM is not an asylum grant; SUS is not a final asylum outcome.

Recorded BIA disposition patterns can change over time. These FY2021–FY2025 counts are not a permanent characteristic of this judge code. Changes may coincide with law, policy, administration, BIA composition, case mix or backlog; these descriptive data do not establish a cause.

All-party source coverage is separate from the respondent-filed table. National parent appeal events: 119,252 · Linked to a stored judge code: 119,155.

Respondent-filed source events: 109,995 · Linked to a stored judge code: 109,915 · Published respondent-filed events: 67,156 · Respondent-filed events with identity limitations: 42,759.

Judge code: DKJ · Stored source field: B_TblProceeding.IJ_CODE · Population: bia-decided-stored-judge-chronology-clean-1.

Disposition date basis: tblAppeal.datBIADecision · Historical period: 2020-10-01–2025-09-30 · Source cutoff: 2026-08-31.

The stored code is an association in the snapshot, not proof of decision authorship or assignment when the original decision was issued. Today’s judge directory and court listing describe current context only.

Source versions and checks

Coverage and source versions are listed separately from publication, acquisition and later checks. A check does not extend the records beyond their cutoff.

EOIR public CASE data

Used on this page: Dated results, historical outcomes and saved hearing schedules

Historical result coverageFY2023–FY2026 · Partial year: FY2026

Source edition2026-08

Source snapshot cutoff

The first and last available fiscal years bound this range; intervening years may have no records. Saved hearing dates and BIA disposition periods have separate coverage.

Standard comparison periodFY2021–FY2025

Source obtained or reviewed for this edition

Official source recheck ·

Source reachable at the last check; its contents have not been compared with this edition yet

Cite this page AsylumCompass. “Derek Julius: historical immigration judge code records.” https://asylumcompass.com/judge/derek-julius-dkj Include the source edition and period of the figure you cite.

Continue from this judge