← Concord judges

The Honorable Immigration Judge Jeffrey L Phillips

Concord, CA Immigration Court
Appointed July 2026 · President Donald Trump Attorney General Pamela Bondi (AG inferred from date)
Appointed under a Republican administration
Newly appointed. This judge was sworn in in July 2026, after the end of the case records this tool is built from, so no decisions of theirs appear in the data yet and there are no statistics on this page. The court, appointment date and biography below come from EOIR’s announcement of 29 July 2026. Statistics will appear here once EOIR releases case data covering their docket.

Background

The Honorable Immigration Judge Jeffrey L. Phillips was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in July 2026. Judge Phillips earned a Bachelor of Science in 2011 from Idaho State University and a Juris Doctor in 2015 from the University of Minnesota. From June 2022 to July 2026, he was an associate judge for the Nez Perce Tribe in Lapwai, Idaho. From June 2022 to July 2026, he also served as a deputy prosecuting attorney at Payette County, Idaho, taking a leave of absence during which he was an associate at Jacques Law PLLC from December 2023 to September 2024. From July 2019 to May 2022, he served as the elected prosecuting attorney for Owyhee County, Idaho. From July 2017 to July 2019, he served as a deputy prosecuting attorney in Canyon County, Idaho, and from September 2015 to July 2017, as an assistant tribal prosecutor. Judge Phillips is a member of the Idaho State Bar.

How these numbers are calculated & important limitations

Source. U.S. Department of Justice EOIR immigration court records, released under FOIA (data through 2026-06-01), packaged as a public DuckDB database. The same underlying records used by TRAC and the Deportation Data Project. Judge appointment dates and appointing Attorneys General are compiled separately from EOIR/DOJ biographies.

Asylum grant rate. Grants ÷ (grants + denials) among asylum applications decided on the merits, for decisions completed since 2021. Cases that were withdrawn, abandoned, administratively closed, or not adjudicated are excluded.

Bond decisions. From EOIR's bond (custody redetermination) records since 2021. "Granted" = bond amount decreased, release on own recognizance, or amelioration granted; "denied" = no change, no bond set, amelioration denied, or denied as moot. Withdrawn requests, jurisdictional denials, and bond increases are excluded from the grant rate. Decision codes follow the Deportation Data Project codebook; EOIR's own DHS "initial bond" field is unreliably filled and is not used. The median bond reflects decisions where the judge set or adjusted a dollar amount.

Representation. A person is counted as "represented" if a respondent's attorney (EOIR-28) appeared at the court level.

The map & appointing party. Each state is shaded by the mix of appointing administrations of the immigration judges currently sitting at the court(s) covering that state — blue where more were appointed under Democratic administrations, red where more under Republican ones. States with no immigration court of their own are drawn with diagonal stripes and take the mix of the court(s) with administrative control over them, per EOIR's administrative control list (e.g., Montana, Idaho, and Alaska → Portland, OR; Wyoming → Denver; the Dakotas → Fort Snelling, MN; Mississippi is split between Memphis and New Orleans). EOIR defines control by DHS district offices and detention facilities rather than clean geographic lines, so in states with several courts the map does not draw internal boundaries; instead the hover and state pages break the numbers down court by court. Where the control list assigns dockets by custody status, each court is labeled non-detained, detained (courts sitting at or primarily serving detention facilities and Service Processing Centers), or all cases; which court hears a given case depends on custody status and where DHS filed it. Party is taken from the appointing Attorney General (or President). This is emphatically not a measure of how judges rule. Appointing administration is a weak-to-nonexistent predictor of individual case outcomes, and judges appointed by any administration span the full range of grant rates. The map is offered only to show the composition of the bench, not to forecast decisions.

Courts where a judge decides & WebEx links. The list of a judge's hearing locations counts the courts (EOIR base city) on that judge's completed cases in the period. Internet-based hearing (WebEx) links and telephonic access codes are reproduced from EOIR's public Find an Immigration Court page and apply only to parties with a scheduled hearing.

Guardrails. Every figure shows its sample size and a confidence label (High ≥200, Moderate 50–199). A rate based on fewer than 50 merits decisions is still shown but marked with a icon meaning it is statistically unreliable and should not be read as a stable pattern.

  • These are past patterns, not predictions. They cannot tell you how a specific case will be decided.
  • This is not a judge-shopping tool. Respondents generally cannot choose their judge.
  • Judges hear different mixes of cases (detained vs. not, nationalities, represented vs. not), which strongly affect outcomes and are not fully controlled for here.
  • The most recent months are incomplete; recent-year figures may shift as more records are released.
  • Government data contains coding errors and omissions; small differences between judges may not be meaningful.