← Aurora judges

The Honorable Immigration Judge Judy Archuleta

Aurora, CO Immigration Court
Appointed February 2023 · President Joe Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland
Appointed under a Democratic administration
15.8%
of asylum claims granted on the merits Moderate
Based on 95 asylum decisions (grants + denials) since 2021.
This judge 15.8% National 31.8% Court 28.8%
Grants asylum more often than about 33% of the 825 judges nationally with enough cases to compare.

Does a lawyer matter here?

Asylum grant rate by whether the person had legal representation.
With a lawyerrepresented · n=72
18.1%
Without a lawyerunrepresented · n=23
8.7%

Background

The Honorable Immigration Judge Judy Archuleta earned a Bachelor of Science in 1982 and a Juris Doctor in 1985, both from the University of Colorado. From 2019 to 2022, she served as a mediator for the Colorado Civil Rights Division in Denver, and from 2010 to 2019 as an administrative law hearings officer for the city of Denver. Following appointment by the Governor of Colorado in 2000, she served as a county court judge and presiding judge for the 1st Judicial District in Golden, Colorado, through 2009, and from 1985 to 2000 she was a deputy district attorney for the 1st Judicial District. She is a member of the Colorado Bar.

Asylum grant rate over time

Each point is that calendar year's grant rate, back to 2015 where the judge was deciding cases — the longer career view. Dashed grey line = current national average (31.8%). Headline rates above use 2021 – today.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%2023: 4.9% · n=414.9%20232024: 24.1% · n=5424.1%2024

Grant rates by type of relief

Share granted among merits decisions for each application type.
Asylum
15.8% n=95 Moderate
Withholding / CAT
6.6% n=181 Moderate
Cancellation — 42B (non-LPR)
0% n=17 Too few cases
Cancellation — 42A (LPR)
0% n=1 Too few cases
Adjustment of status (245)
72.7% n=11 Too few cases
Voluntary departure
55.2% n=29 Too few cases

Bond decisions

Custody redetermination (bond) rulings since 2021. "Granted" means the judge lowered the bond, ordered release on recognizance, or otherwise granted the request.
52.9%
Bond requests granted
n=238 High confidence
$3,000
Median bond when set
172 bonds with amounts
0%
Released on own recognizance
This judge 52.9%
Court average 59.8% · median $4,500
National 41.9% · median $6,500

Courts where this judge has decided cases

Hearing locations for cases this judge completed since 2021, by number of decisions. Many judges hear cases from more than one court (detained facilities, video dockets, or reassignments).
Aurora, CO · home court
473 (47%)
196 (19%)
142 (14%)
75 (7%)
51 (5%)
21 (2%)
Caseload & process (since 2021)
254
Completions per year
1,015 total
50.9%
Detained at decision
share of cases
4.3 mo
Median time to decision
from case start
10.3%
Ordered removed in absentia
person absent
8.8%
Decisions appealed to BIA
appeal rate
25%
Appeals remanded or reversed
40 appeals decided
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.