← Chelmsford (CHE) judges

The Honorable Immigration Judge Nancy Griffiths

Chelmsford (CHE), MA Immigration Court
Appointed November 2023 · President Joe Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland
Appointed under a Democratic administration
34.2%
of asylum claims granted on the merits Moderate
Based on 196 asylum decisions (grants + denials) since 2021.
This judge 34.2% National 31.8% Court 36.8%
Grants asylum more often than about 62% 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=193
34.7%
Without a lawyerunrepresented · n=3
0%

Background

The Honorable Immigration Judge Nancy Griffiths earned a Bachelor of Science in 1993 from Newberry College and a Juris Doctor in 1996 from Valparaiso University School of Law. From 2009 to 2023, and previously from 1999 to 2000, she worked at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Washington, D.C., serving as supervisory administrative judge (2022-2023), administrative judge (2014-2022), senior trial attorney (2009-2014), and trial attorney (1999-2000). In 2007, she served as an assistant attorney general for the State of Texas, and from 2000 to 2006 she owned and operated a private business in Morristown, New Jersey. From 1996 to 1999, she was an associate attorney with Hoeppner, Wagner, and Evans LLC in Valparaiso, Indiana. She is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

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: 24.1% · n=2924.1%20232024: 47.1% · n=10247.1%20242025: 18.5% · n=6518.5%2025

Grant rates by type of relief

Share granted among merits decisions for each application type.
Asylum
34.2% n=196 Moderate
Withholding / CAT
1.3% n=223 High confidence
Cancellation — 42B (non-LPR)
53.3% n=15 Too few cases
Adjustment of status (245)
100% n=11 Too few cases
Voluntary departure
100% n=16 Too few cases

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).
Chelmsford, MA · home court
820 (57%)
474 (33%)
122 (8%)
16 (1%)
Caseload & process (since 2021)
242
Completions per year
1,450 total
1.2%
Detained at decision
share of cases
24.7 mo
Median time to decision
from case start
2.4%
Ordered removed in absentia
person absent
9.3%
Decisions appealed to BIA
appeal rate
34.1%
Appeals remanded or reversed
44 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.